Talk:Atkins diet/Archive 2

Sources Needed
We all have the book handy and access to online sources. We have no sources for any of the material explaining the Atkins Diet itself. Please source as you update / revise this material to maintain a high level of accuracy and credibility. Thank you.

Original Research to be Removed
The paragraph "Many people incorrectly believe...he Atkins Diet is very specific in recommending lean meats" Is original research, unsourced, and contrary to the Atkins Diet. This information is often volunteered in response to claims that fat is bad for you by offering a "low-fat atkins" alternative. This is specifically stated in the book "There is no low-fat atkins". The point of the Atkins Diet is to eliminate sugar and maintain healthy blood sugar. Given food is sugar/fat/protein (excluding non digestable fiber), in order to reduce sugar intake, it must be replaced by increased consumption of fat/protein. Excessive protein, as stated in the book, is converted to glucose by the body (sugar), therefore a protein based diet is contrary to Atkins research. This section needs to be cleaned and sourced in accordance with the original Atkins research.

Heavy Bias
This article seems to be very heavily pro-Atkins. It goes so far as to call information about fat "propaganda", and the entire tone of the article seems to be heavily Atkins positive. I think this article really needs to be revised in order to maintain Wikipedia's impartial nature.

'' Cyberman has missed that the mention of "propaganda" is in the section titled "Views in Favor of the Diet." The organization of this article is problematic, as I have written before, but, from my perspective, the article is neither pro nor anti-Atkins, overall. Rather, it reports much material from both sides that is argumentative, and some of it simply amounts to this or that "expert" saying, for example, that the Atkins diet is dangerous. None of this is objective or impartial, yet it *is* true that people say those things about the Atkins diet and, to return to the point here, it *is* true that there is a great deal of information in our environment repeating the idea that fat is bad for you, and especially saturated fat, and, in the serious absence of scientific evidence proving this, the term "propaganda" does seem specially appropriate. None of which proves or disproves Atkin's thesis that saturated fats aren't a problem.'' --Abd

Could put something about how atkins revolutionaries thought the FDA food pyramid should be changed. --Cyberman 05:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

''Low-carb theorists and dieters in general consider this, not just Atkins' followers. I'd recommend anyone seriously interested in this research how the Food Pyramid came to be formulated, and, especially, look for the science behind it. If you can find any. Just for starters, human beings are omnivores, and it appears we are designed to be able to survive in environments where protein and fat are plentiful, but not carbohydrates, and also in environments where the most available foods are high in carbohydrates. Which of these diets is healthier for us? Without having in hand good research on the topic, any recommended "Food Pyramid" has to be little more than, yes, propaganda promoting opinions. My doctor, astonished at the improvements in my lipid profile after a year on the Atkins diet -- which was not what he had recommended -- said, okay, you are low risk. But do be careful about saturated fats. I asked "Why?" He looked at me and paused. Then he said, "Religion." You can tell why I like my doctor. He knew that there was no science behind it and that he was only telling me what the preponderance of opinion of our time was *requiring* him to say, or else he could be sued. And then he took me to his office and showed me an old book published about diabetes in the 1920s, by the founder of a major diabetes clinic. On the first page it recommended a diet high in fat for diabetics. And why did doctors stop making that recommendation? Again, it's a fascinating story, but it has much more to do with politics and perhaps economics than about medical science. Saturated fat in the diet has never been shown to increase risk of dying from heart disease, and there is some evidence that, especially in the context of a low-carb diet, it may be cardio-protective.'' --Abd

Flaws in the nutritional approach
I've been on this diet for a few years now, (i know i shouldn't say diet since i read the original book) but I thought it would be a good idea to talk about some of the flaws people have which has led to the idea of it not being a true weight loss plan.


 * Aspartame intake (diet pop)

Many people I've met had tried Atkin's, so I surveyed them and asked what they took in. A good majority would sometimes say they took in aspartame. Of course I asked, "Did you drink diet pop?", "Did you use aspartame?" For what I understand aspartame should be treated to the carb amount like sugar, and shouldn't be taken in at all. Seeing as how sugar pop has much carbs, it's important to notice that it should take many grams of aspartame to replace that same flavor. --Cyberman 01:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to contradict you, but a can of Coca Cola contains 39 grams of sugar, where Diet Coke contains just 131 milligrams of aspartame. This because aspartame is 180 times sweeter than sugar. The amount of carbohydrate in diet pop is so close to zero as makes no difference. --Stronimo 06:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there's a great impact on blood sugar though. --Cyberman 23:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. At first, the sweet taste acts on the CNS, hunger is reduced and the metabolism speeds up (this is normal to happen when the body was in a state of hunger and is now anticipating carbohydrate uptake). Blood sugar increases. But the carbohydrates don't come, and a rebound occurs. Metabolism (and thus caloric usage) slows, blood sugar decreases, and hunger sets in again and is actually reinforced (sometimes greatly, depending on timing). The livestock industry utilizes this effect by using artificial sweeteners as appetizers to assist in cramming. The idea is:
 * Let animals develop hunger.
 * Feed low-energy sweetened food.
 * Wait until rebound occurs - this puts animals in a food craze.
 * Then quickly feed large amounts of high-energy feeding stuff.
 * In other words, artificial sweeteners can be used to induce binge eating. Aragorn2 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ketosis
Is ketosis harmful to one's health? Maybe the headaches are just temporary until one is accustomed to this metabolic state. Are there any animals living in ketosis? What about carnivores? --DenisDiderot 12:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Many people assume Ketosis is Ketoacidosis. Keotacidosis is harmful. here are the definitions of both:

Ketosis: Short for Benign dietary ketosis, or BDK, this is a biological process that results when sufficient Glucose as a source of energy is not available from dietary carbohydrate and the body switches to primarily using Fat. Fatty acids are released into the bloodstream, then converted to Ketones, which are used by muscles, the brain and other organs. Excess ketones are excreted in urine.

Ketoacidosis: A state in which there is an abnormal accumulation of Ketones, which changes the body's PH to acidic. This usually occurs in diabetics whose Blood sugar is out of control, alcoholics and people in a state of starvation. Ketoacidosis is not to be confused with Ketosis, which is a perfectly normal function of burning Fat for energy.

Ketosis is not harmful at all and most humans that excersize are in ketosis and don't even know it. I would assume most mammals are in Ketosis as well. In porportion, they are much more active then us. I am not a biologist or anything, so don't take that last statement too seriously. It's just what I would assume. BrianZ 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

'Atkins expensive due to fresh vegetables' claim erroneous

 * Surveys conducted by Forbes found that the Atkins Nutritional Approach is one of the most expensive diet plans [5], most likely due to the emphasis on fresh foods such as vegetables & meats.

I don't doubt that Atkins is one of the most expensive diet plans, but despite the quote above (and BTW the www*forbes*com/business/2005/04/06/cx_lrlh_0406costlycalories*html linked Forbes articl] doesn't say anything about 'most likely due to...'), it is well-established that, whether you compare cost per calorie, nutrient or weight, protein is far more expensive than vegetables, fresh or otherwise. I've therefore removed the bolded portion of the above quote.--Anchoress 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC) (disabling link to clean up spam --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

how is it "well established"? A dozen eggs costs less than a comparable amount of asparagus, calorie-wise. I've added it back in.


 * If you google it, anonymous user, you'll find numerous favourable comparisons. The example you chose is one of the worst, as asparagus is one of the most expensive vegetables. I'm taking it out again. --Anchoress 08:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're clearly more interested in flogging a vegan agenda than engage in an honest debate. Show me any vegetables that are, per calorie, less expensive than a dozen eggs?


 * Citing one example doesn't make the statement true. While eggs are cheap, meat, cheese and fish are not. I regularly see meat and fish above the $10 per pound range, but a whole head of cabbage costs less than a dollar. Beef tenderloin is a lot more expensive than asparagus- especially by, say, weight. Citing individual cases where protein is cheaper than a vegetable (and one of the more expensive vegetables versus the cheapest of proteins, btw) doesn't prove the rule. --Roy 14:31, 28 March 2006 (EST)

I moved the Forbes link down to criticism and added some context.TheronJ 15:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed plug and link to commercial site
Removed this:


 * Dieting Strategy -- Stop Diet Drop Out
 * Diet drop out, a significant problem for all types of diets, requires a new dieting strategy. Exchange it...and watch diet drop out rates plummet.

--Anchoress 15:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC) (removed link due to spam --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))


 * It needed a lot more than that. I removed around 75% of the links. They were mostly spam. --GraemeL (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality tag?
Someone added a disputed neutrality tag to this article. The tag *says* to go to the talk page to discuss it; whoever added the tag should justify the addition with examples/comments on the talk page.--Anchoress 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag, because Wikipedia procedure was not followed. Anchoress described the required process. Otherwise we cannot respond; I'd certainly agree that the article is defective, because, under arguments Pro and Con, it includes unsubstantiated assertions. I, personally, am not eager to remove some of these because, defective as they are, the arguments are indeed common. A better article would confront and analyze the disputes.

A tag placed as this one was, anonymously, with no discussion, is mere vandalism. --Abd April 15, 2006

"Views in favor of the diet' section is POV
The section "Views in favor of the diet" is clearly POV.

That section is called Views in Favor.

Restrict it to views in favor rather than trying to justify why these views are correct, and comparing the performance of Atkins to other diets.

"Diets high in fat do not appear to cause excess body fat, and reductions in fat will not be a solution." Why is this a View in Favor of the diet?

"better participant retention and greater weight loss...greater decreases in serum triglyceride levels" --Annals Of Internal Medicine. Quote out of context: "* After 1 year, these same patients still had more favorable triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on the low-carbohydrate diet than on the conventional diet. However, weight loss and the other metabolic parameters were similar in the 2 diet groups. The effect of the modest improvements in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels on the development of diabetes and cardiovascular disease is unknown. ... These findings are limited by a high dropout rate (34%) and by suboptimal dietary adherence of the enrolled persons."

"Yet, when studies are finally done to see what low-carb/high-fat diets actually do, they are at worst as effective as the recommended low-fat diets, and they do not, in fact, increase cardiac risk factors; indeed, overall, they lower them." But that is not a view in favor. They do not lower them. One quote taken out of context again: 'greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease' is the only quote supporting this.

The Views in Favor needs to have studies that show that Atkins is effective at its stated goal - long-term, healthy, weight-loss. There are no studies that show this. Making comparisons with other programs such as low-fat diets(why choose this as it is now out of favor anyway), are irrelevant.

The simple fact of the matter is that there has been no long term study favorable to Atkins. Even the most favorable short-term studies show that Atkins after one year is no better than other diets from a weight-loss view point, and each of those studies has said that longer studies need to be done before drawing any general conclusions.

So Atkin's weight loss: comparable to others Atkin's effect on health: unknown. Certain short-term benefits have been shown in small studies but the long-term effect is unknown, and the majority opinion is that Atkins is unhealthy.

(Unsigned - April/May 2006?)

External Links Discussion - Asking for inclusion in this article
Referring to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid which I read each point:

I feel that links to support forums should be allowed. Granted, there are some sites that sell items on their site ala Atkins Diet Bulletin Board but they sell low-carb food, snacks and books.

--- heh ... or like atkinsalltheway who sells a line of atkinsalltheway products: www*cafepress*com/aatw (disabled link for spam prevention --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, I sell items so that I can get what? 5% of the profit for site upkeep? Come on. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

--- BTW AtkinsDietBulletinboard*com does not sell lowcarb food or snacks ... and not really books although they have a link to amazon.com ...

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, you have a low carb store. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But most forums exist to help people on Atkins find out how to do it right. Without these forums people tend to follow a diet that is not Atkins and only what they think. In this case, all forums are actually reference material. Sure, Google-ranking is increased by pages that link back to "your" site, but most of these (support forums) sites don't prey on Atkins dieters for money with ads, we're there to help.

Picture if you will, an overweight individual visits this wiki article and does research. Where do they go afterward? On their own of course. Sure, they'll follow what their Brother/Sister/Aunt/Buddy tells them about Atkins but who knows if it's correct. Most forums have hundreds of members from all over the world that have studied the book and know what works and what doesn't. In this effect, I feel we, forgive the dramatic flair, are helping the world-wide obesity epidemic.

I run Atkins All The Way, I have many other forums that I compete with for traffic including Atkins Diet Bulletin Board, Everything Atkins, Low-carb Friends, etc. I want them here too. '''I used to be a member of Atkins Diet Bulletin Board and I found it on Wiki 3 1/2 years ago on this very article. The support forum community saved my life and I really hope we can reconsider giving the support forums inclusion in the external links section.''' (please read Tom) BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we are promoting our sites, I'm not denying it. But by promoting our sites we are helping readers further educate themselves, which is what an encyclopedia truly is. In essence, support forum links are content for this article and should be included under For further information.

I and every low-carber that is a regular visitor to any supoprt forum implore all of you to rethink this based on the content of this article. If you all decide that I'm full of crap and stick with the generic policy, I'll understand and maintain the article with you with that policy in place as a person that has been involved with the Internet world of Atkins for years. Without the knowledge I have PETA would be able to run rampant all over this article. BrianZ 18:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian ... if you believe this then why have you been going around and deleting bulletin boards that compete with yours? You made a big deal to have atkinsdietbulletinboard.com removed from the atkins diet site now you are asking for permission to have yours added? Whats up with that?

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, I remove every support forum link per Wiki policy, this whole discuddion thread I wrote is to include them all so I don't have to keep deleting them.BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your site has relatively few members and is not very active ... it appears to me that you are looking to use wikipedia to build up your site. That is not what this site is about.

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, Don't tell me what this site is about, you add external links to your sites only and rarely provide content to articles other than that. The fact that my board is not very active or very large is something I like. I'm not going to get in a flame war with you about membership. I thas nothing to do with the fact that I want your site listed here along with mine. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The site that you asked to have removed is an long term site. atkinsdietbulletinboard*com is one of the most respected atkins diet support sites with tons of information about the diet there.

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, atkinsdietbulletinboard is one of the oldest Atkins Support Forums which I think it should be included. However, if I cannot add the suppor tforum that I run, none can. Allowing one to remain is heavy bias and is not NPOV. Which is Wiki policy. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is strange that you have been removing atkinsdietbulletinboard*com on a regular basis and then add in a complaint when the site is added. Then ask for yours to be included.

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, I think I've made myself clear above. Please stop posting your link for now and join me in trying to give low-carb dieters more information on Wiki instead of fighting me and making us look like children here. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian,

You are a spammer. When you and your crew didnt get your way you have spammed AtkinsDietbulletinboard*com now you claim that I am a spammer and to get your site included. I think you dont understand the point that if they let one site in then they need to let all of the thousands of atkins diet bulletin boards to be listed there. I think that is what they are trying to prevent.

Regards, Tom

Tom, please, if you read the whole discussion, you'll note that I talk about adding all support forums, not just mine. I'm talking about low carb friends, atkinsdietbulletinboard, atkinsalltheway, and any other diet support forum. The beauty of our sites is that they provide further information to people that are pro-Atkins that want a place to learn more. This is not a personal grudge and by you making it look like one, you are making our argument look dumb. Please stop. BrianZ 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, Yours is not even a support forum. You have very few members and like 5 memebers who posted most of the material there. You have a store that is selling gear. Please dont try to trick these people.

And please stop removing links.

Regards, Tom

Brianz is removing links ... Is there a way to ban him?
BrianZ keeps removing links from this site. He removed the link to ADBB and now is removing the link to the Atkins Diet FAQ. This page is full of information about the most frequently asked questions about the diet. It surely is relevant and not spam.

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, the FAQ you posted is a link to your support forum. That also makes it against policy. The fact that you hid it should qualify you for status of vandal. If you have an FAQ that does not direct users to your site then by all means add it.

--I did not initially add this .. that is why it is not against policy ... it was added by others. Tommac2

(This is why I think support forums should be added. There is alot of information available that you can't find elsewhere.) Also, you can't have me banned for following Wikipedia policy on one of the most highly spammed articles on Wiki. BrianZ 06:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to ask brianz to stop but he has issues with ADBB and is taking it upon himself to remove the links.

Can someone let me know what to do about this on my chat?

Thanks Tom
 * Personally I don't think a bulletin board should be linked from here. I also think the 'foodyoga' link (what does it have to do with atkins anyway?) should go, as should the 'atkins files for bankruptcy' link. Why not put all the links that really don't belong but that have advocates among editors in a section on the 'talk' page? And to answer your question, I don't think it's a bannable offense, I think you should ask for mediation since this is a content dispute.--Anchoress 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and 'tom', it's tough to go to your 'chat' to tell you *anything* since you NEVER SEEM TO SIGN YOUR POSTS. It's really, really irritating just so you know.--Anchoress 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK ... I will try ... two questions ... how do I add a sig line in my posts? Or do I need to do this manually?

Secondly how do I challenge a content dispute?

Also I guess a third question is whose job is it to clean this up? It certainly shouldnt be brianz as he obviously has an issue with adbb.

Could you do me a favor and just go check out the FAQ page and maybe poke around at atkinsdietbulletinboard*com and if you then change your mind that it is appropriate could you add the link?

Also sorry for my wikipedia ignorance but before now I have never been involved in this kind of discussion.

Regards, Tom --Tommac2
 * Tom, sorry to take so long to reply. First, because of the nature of this project (Wikipedia), it isn't anyone's 'job' to 'clean this up'. There aren't moderators who make final decisions on content on a regular basis, even administrators don't do that. Editors are just expected to do their best to adhere to the policies and try to respect the conventions, and the community is expected to try to keep edits within the rules and suggestions.
 * As for talk conventions, it just makes it way easier to read (and reply to) your posts when you indent and sign (automatically with the sig button). It's NOT a rule, but a) it decreases the likelihood of impersonation, and b) it makes it way easier to figure out who said what when. So in the edit window, each : at the beginning of a paragraph indents a level, and the third blue button from the end inserts your sig and a datestamp.
 * I'm not an expert on WP, but as far as I know content disputes are resolved thru either WP:RFC or WP:RFM (wikipedia request for comment/mediation). That having been said, based on what I know about WP I really don't think you guys are going to be able to find a Solomon willing to come down on one side or the other; that's not the way WP works.
 * Good luck, and PLEASE try to sign/date your posts, because as it stands my only understanding of this issue is through reading your edit summaries, Tom, because I have no bleeping idea what you're trying to say in your posts, I just don't have the time or the patience to wade through and try to figure out what you said vs what BrianZ said.--Anchoress 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please include atkinsdietbulletinboard*com in the external links section?
can someone go check out atkinsdietbulletinboard*com and if they feel it is appropriate then add it to the external links section.

Either check out the main page www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com or at minimum the FAQ page is really relevant : www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com/forums/forumdisplay*php?f=79

Thanks, Tom --Tommac2

more on brianz
OK ... was looking into this whole thing a bit further ... and here you go:

This is another piece of the puzzle :

BrianZ got his site removed because people thought it was spam

I guess he is bitter about a few things. So basically he had all of the legitimate sites removed because he wasnt allowed to spam his site all over the place.

- This is my last edit on this particluar discussion (the one below was made earlier): Tom, I can't believe you excluded my site from the list of legitimate sites for Atkins support. That may be your opinion. But it's a low blow trying to make me look like a marketing tool selling a site and using wiki just for SEO. I run an Atkins site and I follow Atkins to a tee. I'm not at all what you think I am. Please read your email. If you choose not to then I'll just let you make an ass of yourself here alone from now on. BrianZ 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.153.88.7

User talk:204.153.88.7 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If what I am doing is against policy then delete everyone else's. These sites are all doing the same:

* Everything Atkins Diet Message Boards * Atkins Diet Bulletin Board * Active Low-Carber Forum * Atkins Diet Message Board * Atkins Support Group

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. If you're concerned with privacy, registering also hides your IP address. [RIR WHOIS lookup: America — Europe — Africa — Asia-Pacific — Latin America/Caribbean]

note that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:204.153.88.7

states:

User:204.153.88.7 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Username is now BrianZ please use that for correspondence BrianZ 18:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I've sent you an email at your yahoo account, please read it and stop the insanity. I hope anyone else that reads this understands that I talk about all support forum links not only mine. Tom, how would you feel if everyone elses support forum were added but yours wasn't allowed? I will continue to delete your forum support site as a Wiki policy-follower. I'm sorry but you just can't seem to understand where I am coming from. I have bee nthrough all of this before with Admins and I respect their policies but I choose to try and change them by going about it the right way BrianZ 06:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian please be mature here. Leave the links alone. Add your site if you think it is relevant. But dont remove others links.

We have the history down. You were asked to remove your site and now you are insisting that you have the right to judge which links are on this page. You dont! If an admin tells me that I cant have it here I will remove it. The link has followed every rule for external links and is exactly in the place it needs to be. I have not seen anything from anyone other than yourself that claims otherwise.

Again ... if an admin is reading this please help.

Regards, Tom

Brianz ... stop deleting links. The one link you removed was posted by someone other than me
Brianz keep deleting links from this page.

The content is not against policy. The link was added by an outside individual and abides by all of the wikipedia rules and regs for external links.

In addition the links are 100% relative to the topic.

A spammer / vandal BrianZ keeps trying to remove these links.

Can you please ban his account!

Brian ... please stop removing these. We currently are in a content dispute and we can bring this up to the admins here.

Please stop removing the link. If it was against policy then it owuld have been removed.

If you think your site is valid then add it.

Let them decide what is wrong. I have never been told by anyone other than yourself that this link is not valid or in some way in violation of Wikipedia rules for external links.

Again pleading please stop removing links.

Regards,

Tom

rules on external links
this is the link for external link rules:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

which rule does the atkins diet bulletin board FAQ site break?

I'm not sure who wrote this, but I was told by several admins that adding your own site commercial or not to Wikipedia is not tolerated and is considered spam.

--- I am inserting here ... Tommac2 -- I did not add my own site #1 it was added by others #2 it is not a commercial site .... please stop removing valid links!

I was also told this includes forums. Once I understood Wikipedia's stance, I actively monitored the article for these links. I have received kudos for my work in maintaining theAtkins article. Therefore, I know I'm not doing anything wrong. My inital discussion points are based off the above article as a way to convince editors of this article to change their views for all support forums. For some reason, it was turned into a big argument. I am all for adding support forum links to the article but Wikipedia admins do not allow it.

--- Brain, who exactly is not allowing it. You are the only one removing these links.

I do, however like tommac2's idea of having a seperate page. Hopefully, this will remain and not be deleted by others.

I assume this issue is resolved. Please do not add links to the main Atkins Nutritional Approach article anymore. BrianZ 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Again!!! this is not a commercial site!!! and was not added by the owner. This site is 100% ok for an external links section!!!

More on External Links
BrianZ,

Stop removing the external links again.

ADBB is not a commercial site! and this site was not added by me. This site is 100% legit. It is exactly what is supposed to be added in the External Links section.

Regards, Tom Tommac2
 * I don't agree. I think bullatin boards should not go in. There must be hundreds, we can't include them all, so why should we include this one in particular? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa. I'm just learning that Tom feels his site deserves to be here, but thinks I should just leave. I find it very interesting and I appreciate when another person besides me chimes in on this topic. BrianZ 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Brian please stop talking for me. This is not how I feel. Please dont quote how I think or what I feel or anything. It is annoying.

-- Threresa I dont feel that just mine should be added. below I have added some rules that could possibly determine which ones could be added. I think the ones that were here are fine. It seems that there were about 5 of them. They all have been there for about a year until BrianZ tried to add his and got it removed ( as he broke the external site rules and regulations by spamming his own site. ) From that point on he removed these other sites.

I dont feel that my site should have any special treatment ... nor am I looking to boost up its google rating as Brianz seems to state that I am doing.

All I feel is that the link was valid and within the rules of wiki and did not deserve to be removed. Nothing more nothing less.

I could fight the same battle for the other sites that were removed by brianZ because they are all leaders in for this community. What is sad here is that sites like the ones BrianZ keeps removing are the ones that help the most people on Atkins Diet.

I believe Brianzs standpoint is that if you allow one then you need to allow all of them. I agree with this to a point.

But as stated below there needs to be some rules. I dont wnat to create the rules and am trying to be unbiased about this. But here are some of what should be looked at:

1) The amount of information on these pages and the likelyhood that someone following the link will get more information or more likely to find the information that they are looking for. 2) The site is not self added ( Spam ) 3) ( This I may be biased about but feel it is something to be considered I think Brian feels differently but ... ) The site should be established.  The reason I feel this is important is that it decreases the likelyhood of spam.   A site that is getting a million visitors a year is less likely to be spam than a fledgling site looking to build a base. 4) non comercial 5) Free

That is my opinion. Again I could like about 4 or 5 sites that would fit in here. I personally dont think that Brianzs site qualifies but I could be convinced that it does. The reasons I dont andthe reason that Graemel removed it was because it was self added to promote his site. In addition it is not big enough to provide enough information. Again that is my opinion and really I dont care one way or the other about that.

Again my point here is that I feel the link to atkinsdietbulletinboard.com was wrongly removed by a frustrated BrianZ. I think the evidence is clearly there about his motivation.

I have not been clearly notified by anyone even BrianZ as to exaclty which rule the site violates.

I think that it is without question that the site can provide an abundance of information about the Atkins diet. Much more than would be feasable or desirealbe to have in the wiki.

Tom Tommac2

Tom,

I'm going to take the high road on this one and tell you that it doesn't matter who added it. Adding links to personal sites is prohibited on Wiki. You are adding the link to promote your site, your bulletin board is not the official Atkins site and you should not attempt to disguise it as such by creating links like Atkins Diet FAQ that link people directly to your site unwittingly.

You want links, I have some for you to read until the next time you berate me for doing what is right. Here's a link to policy against personal attacks, which you have made towards me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and also etiquette which we have both disobeyed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

Here's an interesting article on external links being against Wiki policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming Here's another. Pay close attention to number 11. Note that I have added a request to change the policy on support forum links on this page above.

I hope this information will suffice and I hope it enlightens you. I realize you want promotion, but it's just not something you can use Wikipedia for. BrianZ 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, another add, when we finally come to an agreement on this can someone please delete all this crap and just put a blanket statement about the policy? This subject has taken up way too much space on this page. :) BrianZ 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is currently in content dispute.
The issue is currently in content dispute. Brianz, Can you please leave it alone until a ruling comes through.

It is in the admins hands now. You can back off and lets see what happens.

Please stop removing links?

Also did you remove the link to the Bulletin Board page?

Regards, Tom Tommac2
 * Tommac2, please see the history of the article to see who deleted it. Even though there is no "content dispute" per se, I agree that this article has become unindated with drivel. Let's use common sense here: The best way to resolve this for now is to remove all support forum links until the "dispute" is resolved. If the Admins decide in your favor then we can add our support forum links and everyone else's. If they follow policy, then the article is fine as is. I will continue to delete your links until an admin tells me to ignore policy. If that happens, then I will add my support forum link as well. It has become clear to me that the reason you are continuing to spam your site is because you are unable to use Wikipedia's history feature and see that we are not in an edit war. You are in an edit war with Wikipedia policy. Thank you BrianZ 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom, how is the issue in admin hands? Has an RFC or an RFM been filed? If so, you should link the relevant page back here on Talk so that the interested parties can contribute.--Anchoress 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

user: Xyrael has volunteered to act as a mediator for this dispute. He is a unbiases source and will work to resolve this issue.

Tommac2
 * 100% cool, but just to be clear, Xyrael is not an administrator.--Anchoress 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to follow the rules of wiki for content disputes. the first said to talk to the Brianz. That obviously isnt going anywhere. Secondly to try to get an independant mediator. that is where I am at now. If we cant resolve it then we need to go to the next step from there. Tommac2

Also BTW ... Brianz is trying to slander me again saying that I am trying to pose as anotehr user because I am not logged in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.45.240.31#Your_IP_is_logged_here

I think this is just more proof that he is acting childish. Tommac2

__________________________________________________


 * Here are your contributions to Wikipedia as Tommac2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tommac2
 * Here are your contributions as IP 207.45.240.31: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=207.45.240.31
 * Here are your contributions as Tommaciejewski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tommaciejewski

You stopped using Tommaciejewski, I'm assuming because my entry on your talk page is something you don't want others to see.

As an admin of a bulletin board, don't you realize that Admins have the abilities to see exactly who does what and when? I found out the above information and I'm not even an admin. I'm sure that everyone reading this is laughing at us. (Bows) BrianZ 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian again, I am not a regular poster on wikipedia as my life is way to busy to focus on this project. I am here because I often surf wikipedia for information. I noticed that our link got removed and tried to add it back. I have never tried to hide or do anything malitious as you seem to want people to believe. All I want to do is to add the link back that you removed and keep removing.

The point here is that you have removed it for the wrong reasons Brian. The fact of the matter is that you removed it because you felt that since your site was denied by Graemel that you would find other sites and remove them. The fact that you have a grudge with ADBB ( I dont need to get into the details here ) fuels the fire.

Regards, tom Tommac2

Is the right thing to go to mediation or should I go to an admin?
Is the right thing to go to mediation or should I go to an admin?

At this point I am not sure which is best? If so who is an admin that would hear this issue?

Regards, Tom Tommac2
 * As I said above, in a reply to a previous question of yours (a few screens up), Admins don't really 'rule' on issues like this. You're doing the right thing getting a mediator, but you must understand that the mediator will not be 'ruling' on who is 'correct', s/he will be trying to achieve a middle ground of agreement between you and BrianZ. If mediation fails, if one or both of you has not been suspended for 3rr or anything else, then the issue will have to go to arbitration. Please check above for the longer post I made on the issue earlier today.--Anchoress 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see that an RFM was filed yesterday HERE.--Anchoress 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom could you please answer my question above. A google search for atkins diet support group has 1,730,000 websites. Why should we include links to any bullatin boards? On what grounds should we include links to this particular one? Cheers! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Teresa,

The question here is why should it not be listed? It is not against wiki policy. I understand the dilema about having a million sites listed on wiki. But relevant site should be allowed. It is my opinion that if a site offers extended information about the topic then it should at least be considered to be listed.

Atkins Diet Bulletin Board is a leader in Atkins Diet information. It has 350000 posts and 25000 users. I am not saying that all of this is relevant however the amount of relevant information there is extrodinary. In addition it offers live help to those in need of losing weight. There are usually about 40-50 registered members on line at any one time.

This site is non commercial. It does not make money and is there to help support those that need it. You can see some of the differences from the before and after section on the page and through some of the testimonials.

In addition I am not spamming this site. It was added by others. I am just trying to protect it being on this site.

Again I understand the issue of having too many external sites but I really wouldnt even mind that as much as long as they were all relevant and useful and can provide information that would not be realistic to have on wikipedia.

A bulletin board is a better way to store mass information in discussion format than a wiki. I look at this type of information as an extention to what wiki offers and a perfect item to be added to wikipedia.

Now the tricky part is how to distiguish a leading / established site added by someone who thought it would be useful for those looking for additional information on a topic and for those sites that are looking to use it to get more traffic to their site. That is the harder question.

I feel that the following rules should exist and these are just some ideas:

1) Is the page relevant 2) Does it provide enough information on the page to be useful for someone to follow the link. 3) Is there enough information on the page that would not be practical to have it stored on wikipedia. 4) Is the site added by the owner of the site or is it being added by the community. 5) Is it free 6) is it non comercial 7) Could someone in need of help find help on this page above the help that wiki provides for example ... if someone did a search for Alcoholics Anonymous they would find a list of online resources and bulletin boards there ... check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Unofficial_A.A._sites_on_the_internet

one for example is: www*pluginthejug*com/

or sites like: stayingcyber*org/ ( not sure if these are good examples for AA as I am not a member but it at least shows precidence that other support forums exist on the wikipedia ) But my bigger point is that if someone needed help a forum where there are active people is a good place to find it.

8) Does the site violate any of the external links section

I can come up with more points but I hope you see why the site should be readded.

As one last point and I am sure you know this. This site was here for over a year. It existed as an External Link. It wasnt until BrianZ got rejected and went on his mass conquest to clean out other links that he felt were in a similar situation as his that it was removed.

I am not trying to add it but rather to replace the link that BrianZ keeps removing.

Thoughts?

Tommmac2

strange goings on
It would seem that a number of anon IP's have decided to come here and edit this article and add the disputed likn back in. They are clearly either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. We can't have this kind of shenanigens so I've semiprotected the article. (I reverted an anon first as adding the link was his only edit here on wikipedia). Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are following the edit war please read the following
Guys,

I know this has been discussed adnauseum. But this is a must read to give you all a good idea of the history of these edits by BrianZ. Please read the following in its entirety. It is the discussion with Graemel about him not being allowed to post his site. Reading it after seeing all that has went on in the past few days is amazing. I will leave you all to your own conclusions about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraemeL&oldid=53354796#Why_did_you_remove_my_link.3F

Then here is his next discussion with MonkeyMan :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monkeyman#My_Atkins_Link

and Here is a list of his first posts to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060516180354&limit=50&target=BrianZ

The bottom is the oldest. Very interesting ... and I feel throughs a bit of confusion and a bit of clarity into the situation.

Tommac2

For further information, please communicate via the current mediation

 * Fellow Wikipedians, please disregard Tommac2's attempts to make me look poor. I will no longer address this issue here (You're Welcome :)) and will answer all questions about my length of membership at Wikipedia, My discussions with Graemel, and anything else you'd like to ask there. Please see the following link to the Mediation if you truly are interested in this matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet#Summary_of_Evidence

Again, I'm sorry for this discussion page becoming what it is and I realize that there is no place for such drivel. BrianZ 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Shocking! I think user BrianZ should either appologize or be banned. Please read the following
I am very disturbed about the following discoveries. This was not personal BrianZ but I feel that this underhandedness should not be permitted.

I was writing this as I went along and did my reasearch so please read everything ... it is amazing and very very underhanded.

here is what I was writing when I made the discovery:

I know this has been discussed adnauseum. But this is a must read to give you all a good idea of the history of these edits by BrianZ. Please read the following in its entirety. It is the discussion with Graemel about him not being allowed to post his site. Reading it after seeing all that has went on in the past few days is amazing. I will leave you all to your own conclusions about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraemeL&oldid=53354796#Why_did_you_remove_my_link.3F

Then here is his next discussion with MonkeyMan :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monkeyman#My_Atkins_Link

and Here is a list of his first posts to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060516180354&limit=50&target=BrianZ

The bottom is the oldest. Very interesting ... and I feel throughs a bit of confusion and a bit of clarity into the situation.

One more piece of the puzzle. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060601144407&limit=50&target=BrianZ

Now here is an interesting piece. He went on his own for a few days ... writing some articles about himself ... then out of nowhere went in and removed the link ... it was not like it was new or anything.

'''Wow!!!!!! this is the proof!!!! --- -''' seriously this time!!! Look at this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atkins_Nutritional_Approach&oldid=53352888 this is from BrianZ titled:

(cur) (last) 17:58, 15 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed PETA-sponsored spam)

Cleverly hidden as removing PETA spam ... he removed all of relative Atkins Links.

Now Note the following sequences from the history of this forum.

(cur) (last) 17:58, 15 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed PETA-sponsored spam) (cur) (last) 17:38, 15 May 2006 204.153.88.7 (→External links) (cur) (last) 17:38, 15 May 2006 Monkeyman m (→External links) (cur) (last) 17:36, 15 May 2006 Monkeyman m (rv to GraemeL.) (cur) (last) 17:35, 15 May 2006 204.153.88.7 (→External links - Why does it keep getting deleted, I'm just posting a link to a support forum.) (cur) (last) 17:33, 15 May 2006 GraemeL m (Reverted edits by 204.153.88.7 (talk) to last version by GraemeL)

Notice that there was 2 spam claenups by Graemel and MonkeyMan where AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com survived. This is through where Brian added his site got it removed and then Monkeyman dis a spam cleanup and it was still there. So it was not determined to be spam by monkeyman.

Then as above. Concealed as the removal of Peta. He deleted all of the relevant Atkins Links and then went on his crusade of keeping all atkins links off of this board.

I am speechles.

Regards,

Tom Tommac2

Summary of events. I will stop posting here but just want to make the history clear
This will be my last post in this discussion and I appologize for getting into all of this with BrianZ but I am disturbed about what I discovered today and just wanted to make it absolutely clear what has happened. The evidence is above and is very clear as to the series of events. The way I came about this evidence is that I was looking to see BrianZs first posts on WikiPedia. SO I went to his history and I was suprised what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrianZ

Here is the series of events I will keep it short and precise:

1) BrainZs 1st post to Wikipedia.org was to spam his site "Atkins All the Way"

2) Site removed and handslap by GraemeL

3) Long Discussion with GraemeL about why his site was removed ( Self adding and promotion of site ) -- Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com and other forums and sites still remained.

4) Disucssion with how it was unfair to have his removed but others stay with user MonkeyMan

5) Spam cleanup of the Atkins Diet section by MonkeyMan - Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com and other forums and sites still remained.

6) A simple edit of the External Links section with comment "Removing Peta Links" - this edit was really to remove all of the external links from the Atkins Diet site. Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com and other forums and sites removed.

7) A crusade about removing external links from all diet sites.

8) Accusations about me being a spammer and the following edit war.

All of this can be followed by looking at his contributions since becoming a member. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrianZ

I am appauled about this. This is not what wikipedia is all about.

I would like to see him banned. Or at least an appology from him. Am I overreacting?

Regards, Tommac2

Solution to edit war - proposal
All,

Sorry for breaking my last post promise but this is more of a query than a statement. I am creating a proposal to resolve this dispute the proposal is listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet#Brian_latest_solution_for_Mediation_-_Do_you_think_this_is_fair.3F

I would like to propose that a third party police the External Links section. My proposal would be for BrianZ and I to step away from this issue. The proposal that would be suitable on my end would be the following.

1) BrianZ stops deleting the External Links section.

2) Another unbiased member comes in and will police the External Links section for spam. They can delete as they wish for things that break Wikipedia rules.

Would any of you be interested in volunteering? Please let me know as this may speed up or mediation.

Regards, Tom --Tommac2 14:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request by Naconkantarti to discuss this here:

Brian, Can we discuss this issue civally. I have put the following on the table: 1) You step back and stop deleting links from the Atkins Diet Site.

2) We get in an unbiased third party that will police the External Links section. They can keep it clear of spam and if they decide that the current links there do not follow the wiki rules then they can do as they please.

Do you find this reasonable?

Regards, Tom Tommac2

I guess I'm left with no choice here. Congratulations on getting your advertisement listed on Wikipedia

 * Due to the fact that you weaseled your way by having the last edit before the article was locked, Policy has been averted in this case. It's a wonderful victory for spammers like you and I applaud you for being able to stick it out and find a way around common sense. I will continue to edit Wikipedia articles. However, external links on any page will never be something I take care of again. I have been completely and utterly victimized by the Wikipedia community that tells me it's good to police spam, yet I get blocked for protecting an article's honesty.


 * I still have faith in editors like me, that stand up for Policy on Wikipedia. I just wish them Godspeed in fighting spammers like you. I guess they are going to need it, because I know you will never, ever stop vandalizing Atkins Nutritional Approach, South Beach diet and Low-carbohydrate diet. You will never stop the multiple account spamming and telling your friends to post your link on the article, you will never stop deleting people's edits on talk pages and interrupting them making them unreadable. Maybe I just don't have the time or the fortitude to fight these massive battles against Vandals and spammers. From now on, I prefer to stick to the high ground and not let individuals like you drag me down to your level.


 * It's going to take a very long time for me to build trust in Wikipedia again, but I have seen many pluses, as a writer, for being here. They still outweigh the individuals with hidden agendas like you and I'll be damned if I let you dictate which sites I visit.

BrianZ 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam
I removed several sites with advertising on them as part of the Wikipedia project to remove linkspam. Then I saw that there has been an ongoing battle over external links. Sites with advertising should not be added to this or any other page, with rare exceptions. In this case the Atkins company would get an exemption for this page only, because the article is about them. If I find the link elsewhere I will remove it.

I don't regard bulletin boards as linkspam unless they have advertising, so I have not removed them. However, generally they are poor quality links for Wikipedia and most should probably be removed. Pollinator 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that the edit war left the article without a link to what proved to me, over the last two years, to be the absolute best ongoing source of information and discussion about low-carb diets and the science behind them. This would be lowcarber.org. The only excuse for excising this link would seem to be that lowcarber.org contains advertising. However, that a site contains advertising does not seem to, in itself, preclude links to it. I find no mention of advertising, per se, being prohibited in linked sites in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest
 * A link to a medical journal will often reveal advertising, as medical journals may be partly supported by advertising. Lowcarber.org is clearly advertising-supported, but the very extensive content and discussion comes from users, not the site itself.
 * Accordingly, my intention is, after allowing time for discussion, to restore that link.
 * I'll also note that the article is not "about the Atkins company." It is about the diet plan developed by Dr. Atkins. The bankruptcy of the company is irrelevant to that, having to do with business mistakes the company made, plus market vagaries, not with the diet itself. The article itself is problematic, violating many Wikipedia principles, but it will take a general reorganization to deal with this.
 * Abd 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the exact rules regarding this? and again why was Atkins Diet Bulletin Board removed?

Tommac2


 * As far as i am aware there aren't exact rules. Wikipedia does have some rule written down, but the general guiding principle for all policy everywhere on Wikipedia is does it benefit the encylopedia? If people feel the article is better off without the links then the links go, if people feel the article is better with the links then they stay. The wiki is in a constant state of flux and just because a link used to be on an article doesn't mean it always will be. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I am fine with that. In this case atkinsdietbulletinboard*com was removed what appears to be advertising. While other sites remained. I am just curious why it was singled out as it is not a commercial site and probably holds the most information out of the sites that was listed. I wouldnt mind its removal if there is a reason or some sort of policy that it broke. But it seems like a somewhat arbitrary removal.

Again if it is the concensous for whatever reason that the site is inviolation of something, is hurting something, is opening a pandoras box,  has nothing to add to this site etc ... I am cool with it being removed.

Again this site has been listed there for over a year. I feel that it contains tons of data that would not be feasable nor desirable to put all into wiki. It is free, non commercial ( the googleads that are there basically pay for the server costs ). In addition Atkins Diet Bulletin Board is a very respected site in the Atkins Community.

I would like to request that the FAQ be added as a link. www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79

Please take a look and I would request that it be reinstated. Its removal reason was for the advertisement I believe. If you want I can remove that however I would prefer not to go back to totally out of pocket payments for the site.

Please let me know Tommac2


 * Your link was removed because it contained advertising, therefore it is a commercial site. You were not singled out; this page had become a spam nest. Only in a few situations is it justiafiable to link to a commercial site. If you wish to get some administrators to review your site and rule it acceptable, you are welcome to try. One of them should then add it (NOT you) to ONE location only. You would improve your odds, of course, if you remove the ads. But it still would have to be an outstanding site where it is self-evident that the site's operator has real expertise, not just a POV to propagate. Pollinator 23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. BTW : forum*lowcarber*org/ - has advertising and in fact a store associated with it and in fact is just a front to: www*lowcarb*ca and www*lowcarb*ca/store/products.html


 * I couldn't care less if the operators of lowcarber.org have seen fit to profit -- or at least to defray their expenses -- from their massive presence in the low carb community. The site has thousands of active users, including some of the best writers on the topic in the world. The site is *relevant*, clearly. Advertising and a related store are not sufficient to automatically remove a site from linking. (I've been reading lowcarber.org for two years and never even noticed that there was a store.... but there is certainly advertising, as there is on many such resources.) People interested in a topic should properly have access to resources widely recognized as useful, this is precisely one of the uses of links. And lowcarber.org satisfies that criterion. The advertising is unobtrusive, it is quite clear that the site is intended to support the exchange of low carb diet information (including, by the way, criticism of low carb diets), not simply to advertise or sell products; if the latter were the purpose, there would be much more advertising presence.
 * I had no opinion about atkinsdietbulletinboard.com, other than what is based on a brief review of it just now. It is also low on advertising. It has substantial user activity. It would seem to be appropriate for inclusion in a list of links of support groups.
 * Abd 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

www*atkinsexposed*org/ links to: www*amazon*com/gp/product/1590560868/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/002-9772323-7974442?n=600460&no=%2A&s=books&v=glance

However I am not asking for these to be removed just showing that there are others that also have links.

Could you provide some admins that I could ask for inclusion?

In my opinion my site is very similar to forum*lowcarber*org/ but mine has less advertising. I only have the googleads while they have a whole store and products and everything and they also have the google ads : forum*lowcarber*org/forumdisplay.php?f=111

Again I am not asking that they be removed but just that AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com be added as it is just as relevant.

Heh ... looking for a president. I did a search for : weight watchers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_Watchers

and found: ( popups ) www*healthdiscovery*net/forums/index.php?referrerid=36019 ( tons of ads ) www*dwlz*com/restaurants.html (google ads ) www*alanlight*com/WWPoints.htm ( kind of an add portal ) www*intense-workout*com/weight_watchers.html

and kind of a spam to category Slimming World ... which is totally unrelated.

I am not suggesting again that I would like to see the Atkins forum get like that but these are far more focused on advertising than ADBB and much less relevant to their topic.

I have found similar results looking for Alcoholics Anonymous

Regards, Tom

Requesting Inclusion of Atkins Diet Bulletin Board FAQ to External Links section.
As suggestion I would like to post a request to the admins to have Atkins Diet Bulletin Board FAQ added to the Atkins Diet Section.

The link is: www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79

What I would to be added is: www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79 Atkins Diet FAQ ]] - A list of frequently asked questions about the Atkins Diet.

I feel that this should be added because: 1) It has been linked there for over a year 2) There is an exceptional amount of useful and relevant information there 3) Page is free ... minimal adverts which all go back to site maintenance ( 1 adsense banner ) 4) It is one of the leading pages in the community. 5) Does not violate any Wikipedia External Links rules

My two cents on the external links edit war
I am amazed by the amount of energy that has been wasted in these edit wars, mainly between two persons. I'd say that after resolution of this dispute, both had better stay away from this page for the sake of their own health.

Looking at the page version at the time of locking, I'd personally remove all the forum links.

Of the other links, the following should go out: (Clarification 16 Jun: The above is my humble opinion, that can be considered as a vote. I won't lose any second of sleep over it whether any the links stay there or not.)
 * The Atkins Diet Debate (popups)
 * Weight loss through dieting (excessive ads)
 * Atkins Files For Bankruptcy (excessive ads) - One could mention in the article that Atkins Nutritionals went bankrupt in 2005 after the waning popularity of the diet.

Han-Kwang 09:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with everything yousaid, Han-Kwang. I actually stopped reading both editors' posts almost two weeks ago, it just got soooooo tiring. Talk about a war of attrition.--Anchoress 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with everything as well. I've been away from the article since it was full protected because I realized that arguing just made me look badly and I really wasn't getting anywhere by discussion. I apologize to you all for putting you through the mess and I'm glad policy and/or reason is prevailing here. I still refuse to edit the article anymore and personally, if my link ever appears on this page again, I would hope that you delete it again.


 * Also, would it be possible to archive the arguments on the external links, it's embarrassing to Wikipedia. I think it still needs to be seen because it's inevitable that it will happen again and being able to see the argument would stop future edit warring, but to be out in the open seems bad.BrianZ (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, You are so funny. Dont you realize they are talking about you too. And that you began the entire edit war thing. Tommac2

I've placed a request for unprotection. Can the involved persons please refrain from adding and removing external links and let more neutral editors sort that out? (And no sockpuppets, please ;-) Han-Kwang 12:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, if the war starts again, it will reprotected in a second. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

C2 and Edge weren't just gimmicks
Please replace the weaselly text
 * (These products seem to have been little more than marketing gimmicks designed to capitalize on carb-consciousness. Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, both of which have been available for decades, contain no carbohydrates.)

with
 * Unlike the sugar-free soft drinks Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, which had been available for decades, these new drinks used a blend of traditional sweetener with the diet drinks' artificial sweeteners to offset some of the allegedly inferior flavor of artificial sweeteners. These "half and half" drinks declined in popularity as soft drink makers learned to use newer sweeteners to mask the flavor of aspartame (or completely replace it) in reformulated diet drinks such as Coca-Cola Zero and Pepsi ONE.

--Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 04:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please switch category
I renamed Category:Diet and Food fads into Category:Diet and food fads to comply with capitalisation conventions, but I am not able to move this article into the new category since it is protected. I would appreciate if an admin would do it for me. Thanks. Haakon 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I've done that to facilitate the deletion of the category.--Commander Keane 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam Clean-up
This is the second time in 2 days that I have had to come in here and clean up the spam on this page. I know many of you think that this is just a talk page....but the rules still apply. So after all the links were restored....I decided to come back and leave the links, but just disable them, so no one could click on them. Please dont revert back to the changes. As it is, this page is already way too long and needs to be condensed and/or archived to save bandwith. But to put back those sites will only bring me here to clean up again, so lets try to leave it where it is, a happy medium. And if you still think it doesnt matter beause its a talk page, please go over Wikipedia's rules on spam. --Ownlyanangel 10:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you point out where to find this specific Wikipedia rule? The closest I could find is: External_links which explains what is acceptable on article pages. It also explicitly says: If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.. Han-Kwang 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ownlyanangel is mistaken, there are no rules about spamming on talk pages for the simple reason that google's nofollow is applied to all talk pages. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Logical Fallacy
Under the section on criticisms, this stage has the statement:

"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a PETA-connected organization which is opposed to the Atkins diet, has noted that in East Asian countries such as Thailand or Japan, the average person's diet consists of mainly carbohydrates such as rice and noodles, yet these groups have very low rates of obesity. The average Asian person is also thinner and slimmer than the average Westerner. This example seems to contradict the Atkin's claim that low-carbohydrate diets help to lose weight."

How does this example contradict the claim that low-carbohydrate diets help to lose weight? Perhaps it would contradict a claim that ONLY low-carb diets allow people to lose weight, but I don't believe that Atkins has ever made such a claim. Clearly low-carb diets CAN help to lose weight - there are plenty of examples of people who have had this outcome. The logic of this claim would be similar to the following:

"Foods such as pretzels and French fries, which happen to be low in sugar, are extremely tasty. This example seems to contradict the claim that high-sugar foods like cookies and ice cream are tasty."

Furthermore, as the issue is weight LOSS, how would the example of high-carbohydrate Asian diets - in which, presumably, people don't LOSE weight, but rather never gain weight to begin with - be relevant?

Utter illogic
"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a PETA-connected organization which is opposed to the Atkins diet, has noted that in East Asian countries such as Thailand or Japan, the average person's diet consists of mainly carbohydrates such as rice and noodles, yet these groups have very low rates of obesity. The average Asian person is also thinner and slimmer than the average Westerner. This example seems to contradict the Atkin's claim that low-carbohydrate diets help to lose weight."

The supposed contradiction does not follow in any way from the evidence adduced. Who wrote this garbage?


 * It was probably a paraphrase of a position that the "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" has taken. Said committee must have missed some basic concepts surrounding energy expenditure in human beings. ;)

Merger Discussion
No - Low-Carb Revolution (television show) is not solely about the Atkins Diet. The article should be expanded and not merged into this one. --Brian Z (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the mergefrom tag from the article. There has been no discussion on this merge, other than my emphatic "no", and it has been up for 7 days. (I said in my edit summary it had been 21, but it was a mistake.) Brian Z (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Atkins Diet
I am doing a project on the Atkins diet in Biology class can anyone help me here?
 * What do you need to know that's not in the article? Frankg 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankg, the author of the question is the vandal that placed the "Afterlife Maintenance" phase in the article. I think if he was serious he wouldn't have vandalized the page. --Brian Z (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha, I didn't even catch that. I was the one who reverted the afterlife thing too! :) Thanks. Frankg 16:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone substantiate claims about Asians?
Currently, the last paragraph in the Criticism subsection says that Asians "show similar rates of heart disease" and "a huge percentage of Orientals suffer from anemia". Can anyone give a source for these claims? Rosemary Amey 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit of research and found that heart disease is less prevalent in Asia (citation added to article) and sumo wrestlers fatten up on a flesh-based stew called chankonabe, not rice. Rosemary Amey 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

good or bad
ok, i'm doing a project in health class about diet plans. so all of you people that are disscusing give me your final decision. Good or bad, expensive or worth it.


 * You can find various testimonials on the Web from people for whom the diet worked, and for whom it didn't work. That would probably be a good place to start. Frankg 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Net Carbs to Net Atkins Count
The material about how net carbs are calculated is outdated and partially incorrect, so I have removed it. Atkins Nutritionals never claimed that sugar alcohols are not absorbed; they said that they have a "minimal impact on blood-sugar levels." More importantly, Atkins is now well into transitioning to a different, and more scientific, method of counting net carbs. From their website:
 * Until recently, Atkins used the subtraction method on its package labeling. New science has shown that this old method provided accurate results in most, but not all, cases. Many other manufacturers started using similar net carb terminology while using different calculations and formulations with different types of carbohydrates and failed to validate their numbers, which led to speculation about the validity of net carbs in general. In order to evaluate the real-life effects of foods on blood-sugar levels, Atkins has pioneered a new clinical method to determine the Net Atkins Count. The new Atkins testing method has confirmed that the vast majority of Atkins products will carry the same carb count information as before.


 * Here’s how it works: A group of people who have fasted have their baseline blood-sugar levels measured. They all eat a certain food product and each subject’s response is tracked. The data reports actual measured increases in individuals’ blood sugar. An average blood-sugar response across the group of people is then obtained. This is the Net Atkins Count, which expresses this clinically validated number and distinguishes it from terms previously used, such as net carbs.


 * Atkins products are presently in the process of shifting to this new system; during the rollover, some labels may still show the old net carb icon.

Also, contrary to what the deleted text said, the nutritional information label on all Atkins snack bars consider the bar to be one serving, not multiple servings. — Walloon 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Expert opinions
Here's a list of expert opinions critical of Atkins:  Given the controversy over this lucrative diet marketing, the criticism section really should have more links.--Shtove 12:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Shtove. The link you provided is to atkinsexposed.org. This is a site created by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) the PCRM are a group of vegetarian doctors, funded by PETA to dismiss the Atkins diet due to the false idea that Atkins is all red meat. These are the kind of biased anti-Atkins edits that have made this article incorrect in the past. If people who know about the Atkins diet and are Pro-Atkins can't really edit this article so that it remains neutral, then groups like this should be treated the same. I don't care how many links you find that are anti-Atkins, I can find the same, if not more, that are Pro-Atkins. Should we include them all? No, it would make this article ridiculous. I'm not yelling at you, just setting you straight. Not many people are aware of the PETA fronted organization called PCRM and the fact that the justice department has a file on them due to their tactics of posting their agenda in a medical fashion so as to make people believe they are legit. Brian Z (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a link of my own Do yourself a favor and look at about us on atkinsexposed and you'll the head of PCRM runs the site. These bastards are tricky. Here's a link to Wikipedia's entry for PCRM Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "PCRM features on the Quackwatch list of questionable organisations." hmmm :) Do we really want their opinion included? Brian Z (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've sourced Eckel's comment and given it proper prominence. Since I'm a believer in balanced diet and exercise, I won't get into this article. My view is that this diet is simply a marketing trick of telling people what they want to hear: assure them the food they love is healthy, the food they hate is harmful. Music to the ears of everyone who grew up hating vegetables. Not so funky though when that person suffers from diabetes, weak heart and damaged kidney and liver.--Shtove 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can tell by your statements that you've not done your research on the diet, That's okay really, as I used to be a guy against the diet completely too until I did my research and realized that 3/4 of the myths are completely untrue. Like most people, you are unaware of many ideas of the diet including the fact that most of your carbs each day should be from vegetables, and when done properly, the Atkins diet includes exercise at the minimum of 4 days a week, etc. But I digress. I've been following the lifestyle for 4 years and my health numbers and blood tests do not lie. I'm a staunch supporter of the diet and quite possibly a danger to sway the article away from neutral, which is why I refuse to add my slant to it. But I do try to ensure that the opposite view does not damage it's encyclopedic nature. Forgive me for being so abrasive. I don't mean to sound attacking, really. I just can't stand when misconceptions created by PCRM and PETA among others turn an unknowing public into people against this diet. I apologize ahead of time for any offense you have taken. I just figure that if I can motivate one more person to read the book to actually read for themselves and not really on items taken out of context by PCRM and baking indutries, then I'm doing a good thing.Brian Z (talk)

04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No offence taken, and you're not abrasive at all. WP is good for getting opponents together. In fact, I understand your enthusiasm, since I've had a diet revelation myself and have become a fan of Sandra Cabot.--Shtove 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - August 2007
The article, and the tagged sections in particular, have NPOV problems in both directions (which is a good thing by comparison to the alternative!). The statement, "An analysis conducted by Forbes magazine found that the Atkins Nutritional Approach (the boxed retail food product created by Atkins to facilitate the Atkins diet) is one of the five most expensive diet plans of the ten plans Forbes analyzed," is only saying that Atkins is in the top 50%, in terms of expense, of diets looked at, yet it does so in a very-harsh tone. Similarly, "In fact it should be seen as evidence that a diet high in vegetables, and not meats or dairy, will actually improve heart health," is some bizarre combination of OR, NPOV, and weasel, all wrapped up in one sentence.

My main beef with the "Misconceptions" section is probably the sentence, "Many people who try Atkins have reported eating more vegetables while on the plan than they ever did before." Jouster (  whisper  ) 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely needs some work from a POV persepctive. I've made a start, and will try to do more. Dreadstar  †  07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've taken care of the pov concerns, and removed the tag. Feel free to replace it if not.  Dreadstar  †  22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AtkinsLogo.jpg
Image:AtkinsLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

10,000 patients
I don't have it with me, but the "helped 10000 patients" statement is definitely in "Atkins New Diet Revolution." Subsolar (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AtkinsDietBook.jpg
Image:AtkinsDietBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The date of the first book is wrong.
Hello,

The intro section lists the publishing date of Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution as 1998. The book was first published in 1972.

Sincerely, OgreJ (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC) OgreJ

What we should do..
Is to clearly list the foods that are allowed on the Atkins diet.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.254.65 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

The Atkins diet allows all foods. The amounts of certain types of foods are restricted, but no food is forbidden with Atkins.Webgrunt (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

let Dr Atkins rest in peace- he helped me once....going on twice
I first went on Atkins when I was a very obese 225 lbs in 2000 - months later, I weighed in at 175! My triglycerides were normal, and my cholesterol was down {BAD NEWS for a certain cardiologist who put me on Lipitor with a 204 count at the age of 35 that did not reduce the count and a better DR. that I had warned me off it before I tore my liver up (Kingston, NY).

I faded from the diet and started enjoying the usual fast food slop, and wound up celebrating the new year of 2008 at 212 pounds.

Enough was enough, and I commited to Atkins again- on 1/23 I was at 208 Lbs. Now, I am still overweight, but down to 196 - an 11 pound drop!

I will continue until I get back to my "fighting weight" of 175........ and I am a 47 year old man.... feeling better every day!

GBU DR.A!!!!!

Vito —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.25.138 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the atkins diet definetely needs a side effects page, It also needs to speak to younger people about the dangers of dieting and the best way for them to loose weight, and also the safest so as not to cause younger people putting their health in danger and risking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.77.159 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Atkins good - my bad -my MD's ????
Yo, Y'all. Weighed 227 on 68" frame. Big bones they use to say. Jumped on Atkins bandwagon in 2002, and got down to my Airborne weight of 180 in 4 weeks.  Felt like a million bucks.  Cholesterol 160, donates blood to up to like 10 gallons then and upwards of 13 by now, and all's good.  MD say, Atkins "no good".  So, off the Atkins, and in 2007, hadda have a stent stuck into my otherwise good body.  Heart doc says Atkins is what caused it. OK, that would be fully 5 years almost to the date of "going normal".  Now, with all kinds blood thinners and other kinds of pills, I'm 227 again, even though I walk 6 miles a week, work hard, don' smoke- don' drink.  Weekends I ride my bicycle 10 miles or so.  Don't watch TV very much, eat small protions 4-5 times a dsy.  No junk.  I ask MD for help, and the stock answer is, get more excercise.  Hell, I'm 64.  Whaddaya want ?  Now, I'm scared to death to try it again. My former MD told me to quit smoking back in '80 and I gained 30 lbs in 53 weeks. He says that the weight won't hurt. He died at 56 from a coronary. He was like 300 pounds ! There you go.

My question is, what in the world does one do? I work circles around 20-30 year olds in the oilfields of California, and I just keep getting "bigger boned". Geez.

Who, out there, has some simplistic answers, should there be any?

Perfesser@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.226.151 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At one time, I would have said you were simply lying. And that your calorific intake was actually more than you were expending. I would have said this at a time that I weighed about 7-8 stone, as a teenager and into my mid 20s. In about 2005, I went up to 16 stone, at one point. And have been between 13-16 stone since. In 2006, I had to quit my self employed part time window cleaning round, because of my weight. But in early 2009, I got a window cleaning job working for someone else, full time, no bottom windows, running up and down ladders, 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. After 6 months of this, and having not lost a single pound, I was absolutely lost for words. No longer could people say to me that I wasn't getting enough excercise. And my calorific intake was less than it had been in many years. Being so heavy, it got to the point where the heavy work was actually doing me harm. Carrying that much weight around all the time, while doing a job like this, means your whole body is having to work 2 or 3 times as hard than if you were a normal wieght. rather than the physical excercise helping me lose wieght, I had to quit the job, because of fears over the damage it was doing to my body (heart, joints etc). 80.47.136.96 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.
My name is Andrea Davidoff and I work for RF|Binder Partners, the PR agency of record for Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.

I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will strictly adhere to these standards. All the information I publish will be credibly referenced and readily verifiable. I will restrict the proposed edits to the Atkins Diet talk page and will refrain from editing any main-page content directly as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. I will only volunteer information through the talk page and subsequently ask Wikipedians for their assistance.

If you wish to contact me, please leave a message for me on my talk page or email me at Andrea.Davidoff@rfbinder.com.

Suggestions for the Atkins Wikipedia entry:

1. We suggest a new section in the main entry “Alternative Scientific Studies” as a foil to the “Controversies” section as several prominent scientists have used the Atkins Diet for a wide variety of illnesses. Some examples include:

a. Low-Carbohydrate Diets and the Brain - Eric H. W. Kossoff, M.D., Assistant Professor, Neurology and Pediatrics Medical Director, Ketogenic Diet Center Director, Pediatric Neurology Residency Program Johns Hopkins Hospital.

i. Kossoff, E. H., Krauss, G. L., and McGrogan, J. R., Freeman, J. M., "Efficacy of the Atkins diet as therapy for intractable epilepsy," From the Department of Neurology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 61, 2003, pages 1789–1791.

b. An Updated Perspective on the Role of Dietary Saturated Fat on Cardiovascular Risk - Jeff S. Volek, Ph.D., R.D., Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education.

i. Volek, J.S., Sharman, M.J., and Gomez A.L., et al., "An Isoenergetic Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Improves Serum HDL Cholesterol and Triacylglycerol Concentrations, the Total Cholesterol to HDL Cholesterol Ratio and Postprandial Lipemic Responses Compared with a Low Fat Diet in Normal Weight, Normolipidemic Women," The Journal of Nutrition, 133(9), 2003, pages 2756-2761.

ii. Volek, J.S., Westman, E.C., "Very-Low-Carbohydrate Weight-Loss Diets Revisited," Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 69(11), 2002, pages 849-862.

2. We suggest the addition of new scientific, peer-reviewed studies for the “Scientific Studies” section. These studies have been funded and researched by outside third parties and are backed by scientific facts. a. Shai, I., Schwarzfuchs, D., Henkin, Y., et al., “Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet,” New England Journal of Medicine, 359(3), 2008, pages 229-241.

b. Foster, G.D., Wyatt, H.R., Hill, J.O., et al., ”A Randomized Trial of Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity,” New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2082-2090.

c. Brehm, B.J., Seeley, R.J., Daniels, S.R., D’Alessio, D.A., “A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88(4), 2003, pages 1617-1623.

d. Brehm, B.J., Spang, S.E., Lattin, B.L., et al., “The Role of Energy Expenditure in the Differential Weight Loss in Obese Women on Low-Fat and Low-Carbohydrate Diets,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 90(3), 2005, pages 1475-1482.

e. Samaha, F.F., Iqbal, N., Seshadri, P., et al., “A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity,” New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2074-2081.

f. Seshadri, P., Iqbal, N., Stern, L., et al., “A Randomized Study Comparing the Effects of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet and a Conventional Diet on Lipoprotein Subfractions and C-reactive Protein Levels in Patients with Severe Obesity,” American Journal of Medicine, 117(6), 2004, pages 398-405.

g. Greene, P., Willett, W., Devecis, J., et al., "Pilot 12-Week Feeding Weight-Loss Comparison: Low-Fat Vs. Low-Carbohydrate (Ketogenic) Diets,” abstract presented at The North American Association for the Study of Obesity Annual Meeting 2003, Obesity Research, 11S, 2003, page 95OR.

h. Westman, E.C., Yancy, W.S., Edman, J.S., et al., “Effect of 6-Month Adherence to a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Program,” American Journal of Medicine, 113(1), 2002, pages 30-36.

3. Please elevate the Atkins Diet article from Start-Class to a higher quality rating. Related to this, we request an assessment of the article’s importance on Wikipedia’s Importance Scale.

I look forward to working with you.

ADavidoff (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for all the information.  You've obviously put a great deal of work into this already.
 * To get started, I think it would be helpful to list some of the most relevant policies and guidelines so they're not accidentally overlooked: WP:COI is applicable given your employer. WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims.
 * Looking over the article, it needs a great deal of work. The introduction needs a rewrite per WP:LEDE.  The Controversies and Misconceptions... sections are problematic per WP:NPOV.  There's too much description, especially in the The Four Phases section, in violation of WP:NOTGUIDE.
 * Great job providing all the references in advance!
 * As with the Controversies and Misconceptions... sections, a new "Alternative Scientific Studies" section would be problematic as well, for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On a related note, some time ago I had created a list article containing various research on the general topic of low-carb diets. Since the topic is still so controversial my perspective was that providing a list of third-party publications linked from Low carb diet and other articles like this one was a useful way to provide readers with factual information since there is no consensus among the experts (and whatever little bit of consensus there is keeps shifting). However, a group of editors with their own agenda fought and had the list removed, something I felt was a disgrace (though I got sick of fighting it at the time).
 * I still believe that providing information on studies that have been performed would be quite valuable. Providing a long list in this article is, obviously, not appropriate. But having a short summary here and linking to a list article IMHO would be a valuable thing to do.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My name is Andrea Davidoff and I work for RF|Binder Partners, the PR agency of record for Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.

As I’ve previously mentioned, I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will strictly adhere to these standards. All the information I publish will be credibly referenced and readily verifiable. I will restrict the proposed edits to the Atkins Diet talk page and will refrain from editing any main-page content directly as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. I will only volunteer information through the talk page and subsequently ask Wikipedians for their assistance.

If you wish to contact me, please leave a message for me on my talk page or email me at andrea.davidoff @ rfbinder-dot-com.

Per suggestions from a Wikipedia editor, Atkins would like to offer additional information on scientific, peer-reviewed studies in support of low-carb eating and the Atkins Nutritional Approach. These studies have been funded and researched by outside third parties and are backed by scientific facts.

We suggest the addition of these studies for the “Scientific Studies” section.

1. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), July 17, 2008

The study compared three diets – Low Carbohydrate, Low Fat and Mediterranean – and followed more than 300 obese patients for two years. All the study participants consumed a similar number of calories.

FINDINGS: Low-carbohydrate diets are more effective in achieving weight loss than other diets, and low-carbohydrate diets support cardiovascular health with favorable cholesterol profiles.

REFERENCE: Shai, I., Schwarzfuchs, D., Henkin, Y., et al., “Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet,” New England Journal of Medicine, 359(3), 2008, pages 229-241.

2. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 2003

The study, from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and Washington University School of Medicine, randomly assigned participants to either a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet or to a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet.

FINDINGS: The low-carbohydrate diet produced greater weight loss and was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for heart disease.

REFERENCE: Foster, G.D., Wyatt, H.R., Hill, J.O., et al., “A Randomized Trial of Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity,” New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2082-2090.

3. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003

This study from the University of Cincinnati instructed obese, healthy women to follow either a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet or a low-carbohydrate diet for six months.

FINDINGS: Women assigned to the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight and body fat than women assigned to the low-fat diet at both the three and six month marks. Blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, fasting blood sugar, and insulin improved in both groups.

REFERENCE: Brehm, B.J., Seeley, R.J., Daniels, S.R., D’Alessio, D.A., “A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88(4), 2003, pages 1617-1623.

4. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2005

This study, also from the University of Cincinnati, assigned obese, healthy women to follow either a low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet for four months. Both groups were given nutritional counseling and were instructed to record energy expenditure, using a pedometer.

FINDINGS: The women assigned to the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight than those assigned to the low-fat diet, even though there was no difference in calorie intake or energy expenditure.

REFERENCE: Brehm, B.J., Spang, S.E., Lattin, B.L., et al., “The Role of Energy Expenditure in the Differential Weight Loss in Obese Women on Low-Fat and Low-Carbohydrate Diets,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 90(3), 2005, pages 1475-1482.

5. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 2003

This study assigned 79 obese men and women to either a low-carbohydrate diet or a low-fat diet for six months and focused on the effects a carbohydrate-restricted diet has on weight loss and risk factors for atherosclerosis. There was a high prevalence of diabetes among study participants.

FINDINGS: Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels.

REFERENCE: Samaha, F.F., Iqbal, N., Seshadri, P., et al., “A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity,” New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2074-2081.

6. American Journal of Medicine, 2004

The study from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Drexel University College of Medicine, compared the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet and a low-fat diet on lipoprotein subfractions and inflammation in severely obese subjects.

FINDINGS: Severely obese individuals, especially those with other conditions associated with obesity, who followed a low-carbohydrate diet experienced greater beneficial effects on insulin resistance, blood lipids and markers of inflammation than did those in the low-fat group.

REFERENCE: Seshadri, P., Iqbal, N., Stern, L., et al., “A Randomized Study Comparing the Effects of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet and a Conventional Diet on Lipoprotein Subfractions and C-reactive Protein Levels in Patients with Severe Obesity,” American Journal of Medicine, 117(6), 2004, pages 398-405.

7. Obesity Research, 2003

The study from Harvard University randomly assigned participants to separate diets, including a low-fat diet and two different low-carbohydrate diets, one allowing 300 more calories a day, for a period of 12 weeks.

FINDINGS: Participants consuming more calories on the very low-carbohydrate diet were able to lose more weight than those on either the lower calorie low-carb or the low-fat diet. Additionally, participants on both of the low-carbohydrate diets showed greater improvement in several risk factors for heart disease than did participants in the low-fat diet.

REFERENCE: Greene, P., Willett, W., Devecis, J., et al., “Pilot 12-Week Feeding Weight-Loss Comparison: Low-fat Vs. Low-Carbohydrate (Ketogenic) Diets,” abstract presented at The North American Association for the Study of Obesity Annual Meeting 2003, Obesity Research, 11S, 2003, page 95OR.

8. The American Journal of Medicine, 2002

A Duke University Division of General Internal Medicine study determined the effect of a six-month very low-carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters.

FINDINGS: Participants, including overweight and obese healthy men and women, lost up to 20 percent of their body weight on a very low-carbohydrate diet, which was not calorie restricted. Participants also experienced significant improvements in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides. The results suggest that a short-term, low-carbohydrate diet produces weight loss with improvements in the blood lipid profile.

REFERENCE: Westman, E.C., Yancy, W.S., Edman, J.S., et al., “Effect of 6-Month Adherence to a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Program,” American Journal of Medicine, 113(1), 2002, pages 30-36.

I look forward to working with you.

ADavidoff (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I don't have the time to work on this article, I did look up one of the studies (2b above). A quick read showed that it basically compared a ketogenic (Atkins-like) diet to a typical 'standard' diet (the control group). No blinding was done (blinding is difficult in a study like this).

The conclusion was that subjects dropped out of the standard diet group more quickly, that weight loss was greater with the ketogenic diet, but that at one year both diets produced about the same weight loss. The following did not appear clear to me:


 * Was ketosis achieved by the studied diet?
 * What was the amount of ingested carbohydrate per day for each group?
 * Did the study group receive supplements to assure availability of all necessary nutrients (vitamins, etc.)?
 * Did the researchers understand that exercise must accompany both the studied and control diets?
 * Did both groups receive coaching and supervision for complying with an appropriate program of exercise?

Again, I did not have time to read the whole article, so answers may have been provided. I believe that questions like these are important when understanding research on low-carbohydrate diets.

David Spector (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Books?
Are there more books than what are mentioned? If so, what are their ISBN.143.216.49.250 (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Marc.s

I added The New Atkins for a New You, but the ISBN link doesn't keep the final digit ("-2"). Not sure why. When I remove the dash (-) the whole link goes away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.112.226 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Only add books created by Atkins. Nasnema  Chat  05:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say that? There are books on the Atkins Diet which were not actually by Atkins himself. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Inuit diet?
Perhaps some reference to the inuit diet should be made here? It was shown to have no adverse effects and to be nutritionally sound. Much seems to be made of scientific research into the atkins diet or low carb diets specifically, yet the inuit diet has also been researched and shown to be healthy. As generations of inuit attest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.66.20 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There has never been any scientific study which encompassed an entire people, most take an extremely tiny fratcion of the population and extrapolate. In order to find out what type of diet is healthy, why not look at lifespans? The Inuit people have one of the shortest lifespans on earth, and their traditional diet is extremely low in carbs and high in protein and healthy fats. The Japanese have the longest lifespan on earth, and they consume lots of high-glycemic carbs, such as the staples of rice and noodles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webgrunt (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do all Inuit lead short lives? Do all Japanese lead long lives? Unsubstantiated nonsense. Furthermore, are there any studies comparing Inuit populations that subsist on traditional foods like seal and whale, and Westernized populations who eat foods made from sugar and flour? The current state of knowledge of diet and metabolism is rudimentary. The current state of nutrition and diet research is not much better. Therefore it is impossible to make definitive, reliable, and objective statements about any dietary approach. The best we can do in an encyclopedia is to report the existing approaches and claims. David Spector (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

problem in the scientific part
The reference in the scientific studies section to the research discussing hazard ratios of the WHO diet, mediterenan diet, and a low-carb diet seems misleading. As far as I know, the standard used in that research for low-carb - 40% carbs, is not describing a low-carb diet (USDA's recommendations are a daily calorie intake of about 30 to 35 percent of fat, 15 to 20 percent protein, and the rest - 50% carbohydrates). The comparison between a 40% carbohydrates based diet and real low-carb diets (whose variants begin, to the best of my knowledge, at the most carbohydrates generous base of around 20%) is misleading, if not worse, for it sheds a negative light on low-carb diets which should actually be aimed at a different form of a diet ! --Gil.shabtai (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Misconception?
''Many people believe that the Atkins Diet promotes eating unlimited amounts of fatty meats and cheeses.[55][56] This was allowed and promoted in early editions of the book. In the newest revision, not written by the now deceased Dr. Atkins, this is not promoted.''

[...]

The director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, Collette Heimowitz, has said, "The media and opponents of Atkins often sensationalise and simplify the diet as the all-the-steak-you-can-eat diet. This has never been true"

Sounds like it actually was at one point. It doesn't sound like this is really a misconception. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Atkins organization really believes that "this has never been true." Their position is that those two statements are not contradictory, that the original advice was correct and the later advice clarifies it rather than contradicts it. I have made a change to that paragraph that hopefully better represents the context given in the cited source. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of Intro Reads Like Promotional Material
I just ended up on this page, and the last paragraph of the introduction reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia entry, and it has no sources cited. I'm unsure what to do about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.219.61 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Atkins diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150704043934/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/centers_clinics/epilepsy/pediatric_epilepsy/ketogenic_diet.html to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/centers_clinics/epilepsy/pediatric_epilepsy/ketogenic_diet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 03:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Atkins Die with Clogged Arteries?
Isn't it true that Atkins himself died with (albeit not of) clogged arteries? If so, that should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, he did not. That is a popular rumor that has absolutely no basis in fact. He slipped and fell on ice, hit his head, and died due to bleeding around the brain after spending over a week in a coma. --132 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, his heart problem was not a circulatory problem ('clogged arteries'), but a viral infection of the heart itself. This is a serious medical disease that cannot be caused or cured by diet. 16:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Side Effects of diet section?
maybe this article needs a side effects section? i've often heard reports of bad breath, decreased energy and increased flatulence, but this is not really mentioned in the article... i'd do it myself but wikipedia is the only site i can access from work.


 * If you found five people who had these symptoms, that still would not be statistically significant. Diets involve many factors of daily life, and must be evaluated and criticized using real science, not opinions reported as facts. It is okay to have an opinion, but WP articles must at least have references to facts reported in reliable sources. Adding your unsourced opinions to an article, no matter how strongly you believe in them, will most likely result in their being deleted within a few minutes. This is an encyclopedia, meant to be as reliable as possible, not a source for opinions. It is okay to start with opinions, but then validate them by referencing books and the Web. David Spector (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Partial merger with Low-carbohydrate diet
There is a fair degree of redundancy between this article and the Low-carbohydrate diet. Since this article is a sub-topic of that one might I suggest
 * Issues that are related to low-carb diets in general be discussed in the general article.
 * Mainly focus this article on things that are unique to the Atkins diet. This is not to say that the broader issues should not be touched on but the details can be merged into the general article.

Granted the word Atkins gets used as a proxy for low-carb diets in general but to the extent that a given issue relates to most or all of these diet plans it seems the need to hash them out here instead of just moving them to the main article is questionable.

In particular I'm thinking
 * Nature of the Diet: Cut most of this since it can be considered common to Low-carbohydrate diets in general. Focus mostly on the Atkins-specific details.
 * Scientific Studies: Chop most of the details out of this section and list the Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets article as the main article. This section should quickly summarize the breadth of research that's out there without detail on any particular study.
 * Controversies: Merge any missing content into the Low-carbohydrate diet article and remove almost all of this save perhaps a few nuggets about Atkins specifically (e.g. maybe talking about the controversy as to whether he died of his own diet).
 * Misconceptions about the diet: The misconceptions regarding how the phases work are, of course, appropriate but the rest can be linked to the general article.

Comments?

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * * Oppose. The Atkins diet is only one low-carbohydrate diet. There are many others. If you are going to merge this article into its logical parent article, you would have to do the same with the tens of thousands of other WP articles that similarly have a logical parent. WP is structured the way it is because editors and readers generally prefer a hierarchical arrangement of articles. David Spector (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What is it exactly? How old do you have to be to take it?. I need to know for my health project. Please help!!!!! Everything about it.
Ellie07553 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not an advice or general discussion page. This is a page for discussion of the article and how to improve it. David Spector (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Misleading/Wrong Text about Diabetics
The text: "Sugar alcohols contain about two calories per gram, although the American Diabetes Association recommends that diabetics not count alcohol as carbohydrates."

This text, from the source, means that alcohol in drinks like beer should not be considered as part of a meal; not that the carbohydrates in alcohol are irrelevant to diabetics, insulin must be taken for the carbohydrates in alcohol.

In the article, it is used incorrectly to explain that Sugar Alcohols are not to be counted as carbohydrates because the body does not process them, or something like that.

Either the text should be removed or another source should be used to explain what Sugar Alcohol actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation doesn't support claim
Dr. Gardner's study (PMID 17341711) found that the Atkins diet was the only one that had significantly better results from the other diets studied (USDA recommendations, Ornish, Zone). The statement that there have been few long-term studies of the effects of low-carb diets is in the paper, but it's being used here in the effectiveness section to ultimately support the assertion that the diet is ineffective, which is not what the study found at all.

I think this article needs another major rewrite. Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The PMID link is to a study the article cites. Are you asserting that that article is an unreliable source? If so, can you tell me why? Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source. See WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. We should not use old primary sources especially when we have more recent secondary ones like . Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. I suppose this supports my assertion that the article needs a complete rewrite, as all four sources for that statement are old primary sources. Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, because the question of whether or not research is going on is not WP:Biomedical information and so not subject to WP:MEDRS. However, this seems like it might be original research and so could simply be deleted. That doesn't mean we need a major rewrite. Alexbrn (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense for the article to lead with the effectiveness section, and I think the paragraph is fair and even-handed. Out of thirteen sources, though, only three of them are secondary sources, and two of those go to medicinenet.com and WebMD. Not necessarily suspect, but not really respected either. Bananabananabanana (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Atkins diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310215519/http://www.medicinenet.com:80/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56520 to http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56520
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051001002909/http://my.webmd.com:80/content/article/46/2731_1666 to http://my.webmd.com/content/article/46/2731_1666
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/04/06/cx_lrlh_0406costlycalories.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110064606/http://www.atkins.com/company/press-release/atkins-nutritionals-inc-emerges-from-bankruptcy to http://www.atkins.com/company/press-release/atkins-nutritionals-inc-emerges-from-bankruptcy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

removed link to Dukan Diet
I removed the link:
 * [http:// The Dukan Diet]

Based on a lack of clear relevance to this article. If the anonymous editor who placed this link wants to establish that it is proper here -- or anyone else --, please respond here. The Dukan Diet, from a superficial examination of the web site, does not seem related to the Atkins diet, which is a high-fat, low carb diet, and the fat is very important to it, as is the low carb. Atkins is a moderately elevated protein diet as well, and that is about the only connection I could see.

This is an article on the Atkins Nutritional Approach, not every diet system that exists is relevant to it, nor, even all low-carb high-fat diets. If the Dukan Diet is "notable," it's possible it could have an article of its own.

--Abd 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The dukan diet is not only incredibly dangerous, but also completely inefficient, with absolutely no proof that it actually works, zero effect, zero notability, its that simple.2001:464B:90BD:0:A13D:7219:D1BC:9DE3 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Diabetes Category
I do not believe this article belongs in the Diabetes category in addition to the diabetes subcategory of Low-carb diets. The small two-week study on 10 hospitalized obeses Type 2 diabetic patients was falsely claimed to have been a study of the Atkins diet when it was simply a study of restricting carbohydrates. This is probably why a reference link to the article was not provided. I deleted the false claim and included a reference link to the abstract of the study. It's debatable whether this study should even be included as evidence on the Atkins diet, but I left it in.

The Diabetes category is for articles that are primarily or substantially about this serious disease (a check of whats listed there will reveal that). This article does not qualify. OccamzRazor 20:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a citation for Atkin's book Atkins Diabetes Revolution as well as a link to a The West Suffolk Diabetes Service, both of which strongly link to Atkins as a Diabetic diet. I can also supply references from Atkins books and websites, as well as other references linking the diet to treatment of diabetes.  The Diabetes cat should stay.  Dreadstar  †  21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised more is not made of the beneficial effect of the Atkins low-carb diet in type-2 diabetes. As someone who has been monitoring his blood glucose for over 10 years, I found switching to Atkins immediately dropped my fasting gluciuse by 20%. Here is a graph showing the results: (Oops is doesn't show.) My previous months daily average was 134. The monthly daily average after a month on Atkins dropped to 112. Although I can't always stay on Atkins, when I do, my average reading is 107.69.123.131.248 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary of evidence
Currently the text is "There is only weak evidence that the Atkins diet is effective in helping people achieve short-term weight loss, or that it is better than not dieting at all in the longer term."

The first ref says "Atkins resulted in 0.1% to 2.9% greater weight loss at 12 months than counseling."

The second ref says "Despite the popularity and apparent success of the Atkins diet, documented scientific evidence in support of its use unfortunately lags behind."

One year is short-term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Added a source on the "nutritional nonsense" behind this diet. In the context of the claims made for it via it marketing, we need to be plain it's all a bit of fraud. Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In the context of the studies reviewed in the reference, one-year is about as long as it gets for these studies. I'm not sure "it's all a bit of fraud" fits the wikipedia style manual. We need to be plain about the evidence as presented in reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbhall2 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The style manual doesn't apply to Talk pages. Since we have a strong source calling it "nutritional nonsense" we need to find to some equivalent wording, to be neutral. Something to think about. Alexbrn (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the talk page. You said we need to be plain it's all a bit of fraud. Being plain that it's all a bit of fraud is not a neutral point of view (for the actual page, not the talk page). The neutral point of view would be to report what the secondary source says about effectiveness.

Regarding the period of time, perhaps we should stick to describing the period, instead of characterizing it. In my department, the summary of the evidence is generally understood as Atkins shows a relatively large effect size short term, but is about the same as other diets for effect size long term, and has some risks. That fits with the results of the review here, and in the context of other studies of commercial diets.

Regarding the nutritional nonsense. I agree, a section on the proposed mechanism for weight loss with the Atkins diet should probably more strongly emphasize the original theory not holding water. That's what the nonsense in your new cited source is referring to. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbhall2 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems like you're trying very hard to get this article to read like a strong condemnation of the Atkins diet. I think you have to trust the readers to draw the correct conclusions by summarizing things in a more neutral way. Dr. Katz himself (the author of your nutritional nonsense reference), will tell you that the evidence supports weight loss with the Atkins diet, but not improved health outcomes. He's actually a very nice man. If you read more of his editorials, or listen to him speak, you'll see that he's not a big fan of any commercial diet (since none of them have strong long term results). There's nothing special about Atkins in its limits as a commercial diet.

Added a bit emphasizing the "nonsense" in the Description section. User:Alexbrn, does that help? Dbhall2 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please learn to indent your posts properly. The addition has editorial spin ("go so far") so isn't great. We also need more neutral wording for the evidence. I like Doc James' wording. Alexbrn (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Like this? Ok, removed "go so far". Re: User:Doc James wording you linked, is that his wording, or his revert? I would say that's definitely not neutral. "only" modifying weak is editorial. And again, the description of the control conditions as "not dieting at all" is clearly an inaccurate summary of Gudzune <ref name=Gud2015>, and why I kept reverting the revert :) The article is free on PubMed Central, so you can look at it yourself. I recommend actually reading the referenced studies, but you can see simply by reading the references in the Gudzune review, the control conditions were definitely diets. The diets were presented with behavioral counseling, but they were diets (low fat diets, Mediterranean diets, other diets). We can't say Atkins was compared to not dieting at all because that's not what happened. Dbhall2(talk • contribs)
 * The text "other authors, notably" is not supported by the reference. For the controls you are correct: we can say "there is only weak evidence the diet is effective for aiding weight loss in the short term, and no good evidence it is effective in the longer term". Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Changed "notably" to "including". I agree that notably wasn't the best. Including is more neutral. From Doc James revert you linked to, I'm not sure you're clear one what quote used in the full citation means: "Atkins resulted in 0.1% to 2.9% greater weight loss at 12 months than counseling." In the context of the study (and nutrition research) 3 and 6 months are short term, and 12 months is long term, but yes, I think it's probably better to state the time frame vs. qualify it as short or long term. 0.1% to 2.9% greater weight loss, means that the intention to treat analysis done by the authors showed it's more effective than the diets it was compared to, and that effectiveness is significant (because the interval doesn't include zero). So reverting "more", adding "only", changing "long-" to "short-", and adding "or that it is better than not dieting at all in the long term" looks almost like vandalism to me. It's the opposite, not just of the review, but even of the emphasized quote. Again, I can understand without the context of the study, perhaps it's better not to call it long or short term, but when the quote says "Treatment 1 is more effective than Treatment 2", and the summary says, "Treatment 1 only has weak evidence, and not any better than no treatment at all", I hope you can see the problem. Weak evidence, by the way, refers to the quality of the evidence, not the effect size, and the same paragraph the quote comes from describes weak and moderate evidence, so "only" weak evidence is either editorial (emphasizing the weak instead of letting "weak" stand for itself), or false (stating there is nothing but weak evidence). Dbhall2(talk • contribs)


 * By the way, earlier I took out "more" from my rewording, even though it is exactly what the review says, and added more wording about how the weight loss is less over longer periods of time, to try to bring the wording more in line with what you were looking for. I think currently it's a reasonable compromise. I just can't agree to wording that is false (e.g., that the comparison was not dieting).Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Katz source says nothing about "other authors", this is your editrorial. As to the review, you're picking the "0.1% to 2.9%" from the middle of the article, ignoring its wider caveats and conclusions - and Atkins was not in their short list of diets which had reasonable evidence of long-term efficacy. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Katz IS the other author. It's an editorial by Katz. Katz is not Astrup, therefore other authors. I'm summarizing the source you chose (the nutritional nonsense source), not a source I chose, in order to help you get more of the point of view you want and to try to move toward a compromise in this talk section. Katz would be seen by some as biased, but I happen to like him. He's a little bombastic, but all in all does a generally good job at synthesizing the data. He does, after all, say Atkins' theory of a metabolic advantage is nonsense, and is generally not happy with the idea that weight loss is seen as stand alone metric for its health benefits. Please feel free to edit or remove the bit on Katz if you don't like it. It seems like when I add things in to try to help you get more support for your point of view you don't like it. I'm perfectly fine with you editing that to fit what you believe would be best, so long as it actually fits the reference, (which I hope you read).Dbhall2(talk)


 * Re: the summary of the Gudzune review, If you look at the history, I didn't pick the 0.1% to 2.9% quote. That is was User::Doc James choice (to add it as a portion of the reference), and presumably some other user's choice to include it later in the body. I haven't picked any of the references here. I'm just trying to get the text to match what the references say. Though I didn't pick that quote, it is a good choice for a summary quote. It's exactly the quantitative summary of all the studies of the Atkins diet found in a systematic search of the literature. It is the intention to treat analysis done by the reviewers, not of one study, but of all the studies the reviewers found using a systematic search and categorized as Atkins vs. behavioral counseling for weight loss. I have no dog in this fight. You do. You say it's a fraud. There are scientists who agree with you that there are problems with an Atkins diet, so you can find a large number of editorials, and summarize them accurately in the appropriate section. I would just like to make sure that in the effectiveness section we summarize the evidence. This involves reading the references, understanding the methods, and sticking to what they say. I haven't added any new references, and I haven't removed any references. I just came upon this article the other day when a student said something about twitter being responsible for Atkins and I wanted to double check my recollection that it became popular in the early 2000s. I know the Gudzune review pretty well. I use it as an example in my lectures. I saw the errors in the way it was being summarized so I tried to fix them. If they were errors the other direction, I would have done the same. Please read the whole review and maybe look up things you don't understand about the methods, or ask here if you'd like, before you tell me I'm cherry picking a quote that I didn't even pick. I have spent way more time on this than I intended, but a lot of people use wikipedia, and I think it's important that it has accurate informationDbhall2(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, re compared to not dieting at all, there is actually a review that compares low carbohydrate diets (and other diets) to not dieting at all at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25182101 (Sorry, I'm having a hard time with inserting the link using the proper syntax) I don't think it's as relevant here because it analyzes all low carb diets as one. You could make a case for including it here if you want, but it wouldn't support that statement (Atkins was no better than not dieting) either. It showed low carbohydrate (and low fat, for that matter) to be superior to not dieting (for weight loss).Dbhall2(talk)


 * I missed your earlier suggestion about wording. You said we could say: "there is only weak evidence the diet is effective for aiding weight loss in the short term, and no good evidence it is effective in the longer term". I would change it to "A systematic review of commercial weight loss programs concluded that there is weak evidence that the Atkins diet is more effective for weight loss than behavioral counseling in the short term (3, 6, and 12 months). The effect size, or additional weight lost vs. the comparison, was less with longer terms (12 vs. 6 months). Studies over 24 months had a higher risk of bias and weren't analyzed because they didn't report needed information." That's neutral, sticks to the facts, but pretty jargony. Suggestions?Dbhall2(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn please don't make your suggested edits to the effectiveness section without consensus. This is actively being discussed here in talk. In your edit summary of the revert you say that you changed it because it's problematic to make the statement without the caveats mentioned in the review. The caveat mentioned in the review is that the evidence is weak. That is part of text that you changed. It has always said weak evidence. Can you please identify the caveat in the review that you think isn't being appropriately summarized? Dbhall2(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I modified your suggestion about the wording above in the 22:04, 14 Feb comment. It's problem is that it is a little to jargony, so I asked for your input. I think we can come to an agreement here, and then make the edit. It seems to me like we're on the right path here. Let's just stick with the process. Dbhall2(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Right - we generally don't include jargon (so not "a systematic review found ...") but write simply in plain English for the lay reader. You keep inserting your preferred text claiming it can't be altered without consensus (which you somehow have?) I am pinging WT:MED for further input. I am unhappy we are relaying claims without accounting for the caveats in the cited source (e.g. "While Atkins appears promising, we interpret these findings cautiously as the delivery of Atkins in many trials included in the prior meta-analysis and in this study may be different from the typical patient experience.") We are citing research of the diet used in a professional setting when our readers will nearly all be casual dieters, and interpret our text in the light of that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn I agree with your edit to the first sentence, by the way. "questionable" matches the source better. Dbhall2(talk) 18:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think weak evidence shows the caveats, but i'd be happy with something about how the conditions in the review were not typical of the what a dieter on their own would experience. Let me come up with something here... Dbhall2(talk) 18:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI, I'm not always reinsterting the same text. I haven't touched this section since I was alerted to the talk, except when you changed the previous text to your suggested wording while we were in the middle of coming to a consensus here.


 * To communicate the concern of the reviewer in the conclusion, how about we have it read as follows:


 * "The Atkins diet is promoted with questionable claims that carbohydrate restriction is the "key" to weight loss,[2]. There is weak evidence that the Atkins diet is more effective than behavioral counseling for weight loss at 6-12 months.[3] As with other commercial weight loss programs, the effect size is smaller over longer periods.[3][4] The reviewer urged clinicians use caution when prescribing the Atkins diet without the support of a dietician [3]."Dbhall2(talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggestions? How do you think we should communicate that concern?


 * I'd add that your wording didn't say anything about the caveats you say you're concerned about as well. With your edit, it sounded like you just wanted it to read as a straight condemnation of the diet, when that's not what the review (which I didn't choose) says. Now we're moving forward again, since you've identified a caveat that you'd like the language to include. Lets come to an agreement, THEN make the edit. Dbhall2(talk) 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I liked my wording which you reverted. As to your proposal I am bamboozled: how do we get "The reviewer urged clinicians use caution when prescribing the Atkins diet without the support of a dietician". I don't know how to parse this (e.g. who is "the reviewer" - and how do we get to considering "prescriptions" for this diet when the Atkins diet isn't recommended by the review?). Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you make a suggestion that describes the actual caveat (rather than just uses more negative language)? I.e., can you make a suggestion that describes what Gudzune says, which is this
 * "While Atkins appears promising, we interpret these findings cautiously as the delivery of Atkins in many trials included in the prior meta-analysis and in this study may be different from the typical patient experience. For example, trials often relied upon registered dieticians to deliver counseling and dietary guidance on Atkins. " Dbhall2(talk) 19:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd add that I think you're misreading the review. It presents positive evidence for the Atkins effectiveness for weight loss, which it recommends interpreting cautiously, especially if clinicians don't use the conditions similar to those in the studies. This is pretty standard language, and well summarized by the phrase "weak evidence". It's not a negative review of Atkins, but you seem to think it is. Maybe that's why we're having a hard time agreeing. Weight watchers and Jenny Craig are recommended over Atkins, as they have longer term data, require fewer clinician resources (they come with nutritional support), but the studies also have a moderate to high risk of bias. I wouldn't be against a more thorough description of this and other reviews that put Atkins in the context of other commercial weight loss programs, but I think you're drawing a conclusion (Atkins is bad) that isn't in the reference, and trying to use language that describes it as bad. Just describe the evidence and let readers draw the conclusion.Dbhall2(talk) 19:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I never put "Atkins is bad" (though from RS we know its premise is nonsense). I'm having a hard time relating your interpretation of things, to what those things actually say. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my interpretation of things. I teach interpretation of medical literature to clinicians, so maybe I should take that to heart and work on simplifying. Since you're having a hard time understanding me, why don't you make a suggestion of how you would word the language the reviewer actually says (quoted above), and we can go from there. Dbhall2(talk) 19:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd add that you've made your point of view very clear at the top of this talk page. You said "we need to be plain, It's all a bit of fraud".Dbhall2(talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's on the Talk page (are you trying to confuse things?), and it's just a fact (see Katz). It's why we need to be careful about presenting the evidence, not inventing stuff about prescriptions and so on. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * agree w/ Alexbrn(responding to post at }--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said it was on the talk page. There is no attempt to confuse things. The point is that you have a non neutral point of view personally. You think it's a fraud. The Katz reference doesn't say it's a fraud, but that the proposed mechanism for the weight loss is nonsense. Katz agrees that the weight loss is real. Again, I'd like us to collaborate here. You don't like the way I suggested summarizing the caveat in the reference. Please suggest a way to summarize it that you like, just make sure it aligns with the reference. I'll quote it again.


 * "While Atkins appears promising, we interpret these findings cautiously as the delivery of Atkins in many trials included in the prior meta-analysis and in this study may be different from the typical patient experience. For example, trials often relied upon registered dieticians to deliver counseling and dietary guidance on Atkins. " Dbhall2(talk) 22:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How about

"There is weak evidence that the Atkins diet is more effective than behavioral counseling for weight loss at 6-12 months.[3] These benefits often required a registered dietitian providing counselling to achieve.[3]" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that'd be an improvement, if we keep the lede as-is. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this new edit to the effectiveness section accurately summarizes the review and support its inclusion in the summary of evidence section. I didn't notice the lead until now. I don't believe it is accurate, especially since it contains the false statement that there is no evidence over the longer term. It's easy to run into trouble when you start saying something doesn't exist, especially if the source you cite doesn't say that. Neither source says that, so the absence of evidence is your original research. What source 4 (Astrup) does say in the 2004 editorial, is:
 * "Even though it appears, as claimed, to promote weight loss and prevention of weight gain without hunger, at least in the short term, the long-term effects *on health and disease prevention* are still unknown.... the crucial point is that there is still *insufficient* information to determine whether the beneficial effects of this diet outweigh potential adverse effects in the long term." (Emphasis mine)
 * In the 14 years since 2004, we have longer term evidence (reviewed in Gudzune). It's just lower quality (only completers reported) and equivocal re: whether Atkins dieters lose more than the control dieters. There is also weak evidence for longer term weight loss in other more recent reviews. That evidence, of course, has its own problems, but it exists.


 * Despite the new evidence, though, I think Astrup's 2004 conclusion still holds: Atkins dieters lose weight, but there is still *insufficient* evidence supporting an overall health benefit, and insufficient evidence against an overall health harm. I hope you can see that this editing dispute isn't about trying to put a positive spin on Atkins, but rather about being accurate in how we criticize. If you tell people there is no evidence, when in fact there is evidence, you lose credibility. Similarly, if you tell people Atkins doesn't help people lose weight, when the evidence shows it does, you also lose credibility. The issue isn't the weight loss, it's the overall effect on health. It may seem like a subtle point, but it's really not. From my perspective on the literature, the problems with Atkins are as follows: the proposed mechanism doesn't hold water, and the marketing claims (a lifetime approach to good health) have insufficient evidence to back them up. At this point, I'm tired of arguing with you. I would like the lead to read "insufficient" instead of "no", and again, adding "only" to weak evidence is problematic, and straight out of the wikipedia example for improper editorial synthesis, but I don't feel like making more of a stink about it. Again, I agree with Doc James' suggestion for this section. Lets incorporate it.Dbhall2(talk)22:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use old reviews to undercut newer ones. The Gudzune review does consider long-term (>12 month) efficacy and Atkins is not among those considered to have supporting evidence for this, so "no evidence" in this case seems right. As to "only", WP:PSCI requires us to contextualize pseudoscientific notions with a mainstream view, so linking the nonsensical claims of Atkins to the actual findings is good per this neutrality policy. Alexbrn (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, seriously? How do you see the conclusion reached by the others users in this talk and conclude that you have consensus to edit this to say "There is however no good evidence for the diet's effectiveness in helping achieve weight loss"? That is not what Gudzune says. Astrup (YOUR source, not mine) says there is insufficient evidence for it's long term benefit for health. Gudzune says there is weak evidence that Atkins is better than control diets at helping with weight loss. It's poor editorial synthesis to change that to "there is no good evidence for weight loss." Again, if you say that, you lose credibility. The evidence does not support it's benefit for overall health, but it definitely comes down on the side of losing weight then not, especially in the short term (3-6 months). Gudzune is not pseudoscience. Dr. Atkins' book is, but we're not covering the book, we're covering the diet as it performs in credible studies. I was OK leaving the lead as you wrote it previously, even though I didn't think it was the most accurate thing to say, but you really ran with it. Dbhall2(talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, Astrup and Gudzune are not in conflict. They make different statements that are consistent. If you want the lead to say "there is no good evidence for overall health benefits of the Atkins diet", I don't have a problem with that. You could cite Katz, Astrup, and Gudzune on that statement, as they are all in agreement there. Just don't say there is no good evidence for weight loss without clarifying that the sum of the available evidence is actually in favor of weight loss. Otherwise this article's important and true criticisms of the diet lose credibility. Dbhall2(talk) 06:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We tend not to use old reviews when newer are available. "No good evidence" is a good paraphrase of the "weak evidence with caveats" (what we effectively have). Why are you invoking pseudoscience wrt Gudzune? It obviously isn't apt. The present lede is okay though. Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire gist of the article that the diet is a fad is incorrect has no proper source
The gist of this article, from the first paragraph, is that the diet is a fad. The only source cited for this is cited in a style that looks as if it's referencing a book but is in fact citing an online blog with no link provided. The blog is a short opinion piece by someone unqualified to make this statement and who cites no evidence for the assertions they make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.111.19 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Been searching for a proper source for this statement and found none. Seem the label originates from a source that claims ALL diets are "fads" since ALL diets "lose their efficiency" after the person goes off the diet. The fact that the erronous quote and non-existant citeable research, is made up by someone emotional regarding the subject and wants to put their emotion twice in the very beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.99.168 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a search and - on the contrary - found many sources giving the diet this classification. I've added one of the stronger ones to quell any doubt! Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, it would be helpful to see the source listed here that you say show it to be a fad diet. The one listed at the beginning is quite inaccurate, even stating the Dr. Atkins cause of death as a heart attack, which is clearly false. Most that I've come across have many inaccuracies overall, and are usually dated information from back when criticism of Dr. Atkins diet was most popular, around 1999 as I recall. Disciplyne (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Technical point: If you want to get someone's attention, you need to ping them like I just did to you with the reply template. You can also use ping, as in which will render as  (who will now see this since it will ping him). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, hello. The answer here is that we go by the sources (they are "listed" in the article). They say it's a fad diet &amp; it fits the definition of fad diet like a glove. So Wikipedia says it too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"NPOV dispute"
"NPOV dispute"

The entire article reads as an anti-Atkins forum post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide specific evidence and examples. Otherwise, there is no NPOV dispute. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling it a fad diet, from jump street is a starter. There's nothing to back that up other than non-expert opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Further, the whole field of weight-loss and nutrition is NOT settled science. You gonna call Atkins a, "fad" diet, call them ALL fad diets. The entire article is obviously biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And if you want me to DESTROY this article line by line, I will.

"The Atkins diet is classified as a low-carbohydrate fad diet." Wrong.

6 Reasons to Stop Calling Low-Carb a "Fad" Diet

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-to-stop-calling-low-carb-a-fad

"The diet is marketed with questionable claims that carbohydrate restriction is critical to weight loss." Wrong. Even the Federal Government is changing their advice on carbohydrate intake.

https://oregon.providence.org/forms-and-information/a/ask-an-expert-changes-to-the-food-pyramid-s-carb-recommendations/

I could go on, and will. Do not take the NPOV dispute off this article. I will post more tomorrow.
 * Please do not bring unreliable sources here. The article follows reliable sources on this diet. If RS call this diet a fad diet, so shall Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article does The Mayo Clinic call Atkins a "fad diet". At the very least, it's disputed and the NPOV tag should remain. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/atkins-diet/art-20048485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done some research and found that there's not an official list of fad diets, as per The Centers For Disease Control (CDC), The United States Department of Agriculutre (USDA, same people who publish the My Plate guidelines), or any other Federal agency that I can find. It's all opinion, not settled science. This article, and all the articles on diet and nutrition ARE DISPUTED, NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We go by what reliable sources say. They say it's a fad diet (hardly an unusual claim seeing as it fits the definition well), and so Wikipedia does too. Suggest we're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's just the thing, that's not a reliable source. And it's disputed by reliable sources. I suggest we're not done here. What you going to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And so, in the face of conflicting sources, one you say is reliable, which I doubt the veracity of, and others of which there is no doubt they are reliable, what do you do? Here's a bit more, definitely a reliable source...

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_and_pseudoscience_in_adult_nutrition_research_and_practice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A reference work published by Routledge is what we generally call a "reliable source" for a simple categorization. Your source does not appear to discuss this topic at all. There are other sources referring to this diet matter-of-factly as a fad, like NHS Choices, but it's such an unexceptional little fact we needn't bother adding redundant sourcing. (Also you sound learn to indent and sign your posts). Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Crappy moderation like this is why Wikipedia is and will remain a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Study Cited
The study cited in first section ("Effectiveness") compares users of the Atkins Diet to a control group that received behavioral counseling for weight loss. Perhaps there would be a better study to compare it to when assessing the overall 'effectiveness' of the diet. A control group that may have had no behavioral counseling could be a good example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindimine (talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mindimine, no. The source is a literature review per WP:MEDRS, which was covered in your student training. We don't use individual clinical trial publications as sources. (btw, I moved your comment down here - new comments go at the bottom)  Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Article bias
From the introduction, this article seems to have some bias in it. Specifically, the sentence "the diet is marketed with questionable claims that carbohydrate restriction is critical to weight loss" does not allow the reader to believe that the article is fairly balanced. It should not lead with saying the claims are questionable. Additionally, are there truly no good claims, at all, in achieving effective weight loss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindimine (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD -- the lead just summarizes the body of the article. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional instances of bias
This article is profoundly biased and does not include current (2018) results of research trials. Low carbohydrate dieting, such as Atkins, is becoming recognized as the preferred diet for sufferers of type 2 diabetics because of its positive impact on blood glucose and insulin levels. See work of Virta Health and others.

Dr. Katz is quoted without any information about his financial relationships with trade groups of the food processing industry. Since the Atkins diet cautions against eating processed foods such as sugar, cereals, breads, and snacks, Katz cannot be considered an independent observer.

There is no unbiased discussion of the claims of the diet’s impact on the risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary criticism of the Atkins diet over the decades is that it increases the risk of heart disease. However, today, the conventional and widely accepted lipid-heart hypothesis is under assault by many researchers and medical practitioners. It is convenient to think of cholesterol as the primary driver of heart disease, but in fact, this is not settled science.

Instead of portraying this diet as a “fad diet”, it should be discussed as the recommended diet of a medical professional who withstood relentless pushback and dismissal from government and entrenched medical interests. Low carbohydrate dieting is being recognized around the world for its impact on diabetes, heart health as measured through standard lipid panels, and body weight. These three impacts are important net positives to human health considering the growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes, both of which are recognized risk factors for heart disease and many cancers.

On a technical note, Dr. Eric Westman is quoted without any reference as to who he is. His complete name is not even given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.110.55 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this is releavant in Wikipedia. We summarize reliable sources here. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's relevent if the claimer can provide reliable sources, and better still, provide a summary of what all reliable sources have to say on the subject. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 11:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's much in the Atkins diet that is probably sh*te, but this article makes the 'extra' effort to drive this home through heavy source cherrypicking to present a decidedly 'anti' POV. No such skewing of fact is required: if the diet does not pass peer review, then the preponderence of all reliable sources will show this. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 12:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverting Lede changes
Whoah with the knee-jerk revert trigger. ONE source (afaik) considering the Atkins as a 'fad' cannot justify an 'authorative' statement of finality (that, in a weasely way, pretends to echo 'commonly accepted fact'.

That revert also removed the tag on the 'causes heart disease' claim... and here, too, this claim's preponderance in all peer-review must be demonstrated before it can be presented as widely-accepted 'fact'.

No thought went into that revert at all, which usually indicates WP:OWN issues. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 12:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ledes summarize bodies and do not need citations. These are sourced in the body - and the fad classification has more than one source, so your wording was misleading in just the way WP:ASSERT warns about. It's an obvious fad diet; sources says so; Wikipedia accordingly does too. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Selective citations does not a body of evidence represent; this entire article seems to suffer from this. Also to be condemned is the 'statement of fact' tone of many claims that neglect to mention their (selective) origins or preponderance in a larger general consensus.
 * I am not 'for' the Atkins diet in any way, but such selective sensationalism (to better 'prove a Point (POV)') is one of the things that is making Wikipedia a laughingstock... a bad-acting 'forcing' obvious to everyone but its authors, apparently. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 12:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We "select" high-quality sources, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works at all.
 * Further reverts without satisfying the above, I'm opening this to an RfC... this entire article requires attention, anyway. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 12:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So, why have you attributed this "fad diet" diet categorization to just one source when the article body has two, and a simple search (or just reading this Talk page) shows there are more? This is what WP:ASSERT warn about - making something seem disputed when it is not, as I wrote above. You have gone to 3RR in pushing this too. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Insinu-Wikilawyering won't help, either, and you are the one pushing, here.
 * If that claim does not represent a general consensus of sources, it cannot be presented as such. Period. Even a quick glance through this talk page shows prior problems with this claim, so your claim that it does is disingenuous, too. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 13:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we were to invoke "general consensus" we'd need sourcing to the threshold of WP:RS/AC. As it is, it's just a dull fact that this is a fad diet - it's the quintessential fad diet. As a bonus, we've high-quality sources saying so and no decent RS disputing it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How many 'high quality' (according to who... Wiki editors? Are these secondary sources? Opinion? Go figure.) sources out of how many describing the diet? And apparently we have some networking going on, too.
 * Okay, time for an RfC. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a variation of the flat-earthers' argument that we can't say the Earth is round because the majority of sources about the Earth don't mention it. We see the argument deployed frequently as a WP:PROFRINGE gambit for many fad diets and other fringe health products. If you have problems about behaviour take them to WP:AIN; raising them here is disruptive. As for (yet another) RfC on "fad diet" classification, I wonder if that might try the community's patience given you seem to have made no effort to produce sourcing for your contentions. Presumably you want to remove that category for this, and every other fad diet where you aren't shown a super-majority of sources using these words? Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Flat-earther analogy, but it doesn't apply... and makes no rational sense, because most sources do mention the earth's shape (and, unlike your claim, we are buried in evidence that the earth is round).
 * Diets such as Atkins, before they are (dismissed as) a 'fad', are peer reviewed scientific study, but this article would 'rather' present opinion as 'fact' and provide a selection of studies (out of a consensus of...?) supporting that, and make no mention of consensus. This is all sorts of Wikipedia no-no. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 13:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now we have the argument (beloved by e.g. homeopaths) that because something is peer-reviewed, it has legitimacy. If Atkins is not a fad diet, nothing it. It is the grand-daddy of all fad diets as described in lay-texts, textbooks and scientific literature. No good source disputes the fad classification. In lieu of new sourcing, I suggest we are done. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for a WP:FRINGE comparison, but again, it doesn't apply (as I ask for a demonstration of the results of that peer-review, so thanks also for... distract to strawman-ambiguity). And such attempts aren't an argument for 'your' case (it should be, from the get-go, blanket-dismissed as a 'fad' like... a cabbage diet).
 * And you keep 'declaring' things (as 'done', 'decided', etc.), but I'm sorry, you have not satisfied any question I raised here. If the Atkins diet, which has been tested and peer-reviewed (unlike many 'other' "fad diets") was indeed a 'fail' on all counts, the results of the body of peer review (# of papers, dates of study, times cited, etc.) would demonstrate this... and the fact that the article doesn't take that approach speaks for itself. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 14:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The question of whether the diet "fails" or not is distinct from the question of whether it's a fad or not. It would be hard to imagine something that better exemplifies food faddism, especially in the light of the extravagant claims made for this product. A primary research paper from 2004 is not, incidentally, a reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You must be purposely missing my point. This article goes to great efforts to blanket-dismiss this as a ('popular') 'fad'... and that's it. The diet (and the study it resulted from) was more than that (as the paper I cited demonstrates). <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 14:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * i was looking for yet more sources on the fad diet thing and came across by Gregory Petsko; very much of opinion piece; we can perhaps use it with attribution?  Some great lines: "Then there's the matter of concentration. Low-carbohydrate diets are claimed to improve your ability to concentrate. I can attest that this is true, but what that they don't tell you is that your concentration will be on chocolate cake. " Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is also telling: "It is also effective. Unlike many fad diets, this one makes some biochemical sense, which may be why so many scientists I know seem to be on it."... kind of my point. And there seems to be much FUD about it, too, but scientific consensus (since it exists) should have the final say (about its value).
 * It's odd to see a paper like that (is it, or was it... scraped?) published in the NIH. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 14:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If they are opinion pieces, they must be presented as such, and not presented as (widely-accepted) fact. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 14:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't published by the NIH. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You found it on the NCBI, but look under that (upper-left) logo... that's where they got it. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It was published in the journal Genome Biology which is published by BioMed Central (located in the UK); the published paper was deposited in PubMed Central which is an open access repository that accepts papers from just about every publisher that will give them, and also accepts prepublication manuscripts.  And I never said where I found it, but I found it in Pubmed which is an index of many many papers, of many genres.  Your comments here are not competent.  Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be doing your best to paint me that way. Did I say that the trail ended there? I didn't think to look, because it really isn't that important, and not part of the question (only you are making it so). <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 15:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with my point, but while we're there: thanks for reporting only me. Alles klar. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 16:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Question: I just read earlier in the talk page, and am wondering if some of the 'anti-Atkins' bias here has anything to do with the 'promo-push' attempt by the Atkins organisation. That is a pretty (expletive) thing to try (especially in the condescending 'directives' they used). Yet certain elements of the Atkins diet are founded in science (and these could be considered fairly without the dismissive tones, without even crediting Atkins with them. One has to give credit where credit is due... dismiss the company for making it a 'fad', but don't dismiss the science (which would be doing science a disservice as a whole). A common analogy comes to mind.

Sorry if I 'lost it' today, but all the manoeuvering and bullying just to make a WP:POINT 'stick' should have no place here. And some of you were frankly dishonest in your selective (and short-sighted) accusations... don't present opinion as fact, or present it as such, and there can be no problem. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 16:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, while you're busy firing off accusations of dishonesty you can't expect much quarter to be given. You have produced no decent sources and have wasted community time with an incompetent RfC, edit warring, pointy WP:BATTLEGROUND posts, and weird misrepresentations of policy. What we know - from good RS - about this diet is that it's based on nonsensical claims, does not work very well, is over-hyped, and is a canonical "fad diet". That is the reality from RS and that is the reality we shall reflect. No amount of POV-pushing, personal vitriol, and disruption is going to shift us away from these bare facts. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about 'me', and your tu quoque accusations are a perfect example of what I was talking about.
 * All of this to defend a case presentation of opinion as 'commonly-accepted fact' (as well as giving credence to weakly-supported FUD claims). The diet in name has become a 'fad', but some of the science underlying it has not (and cannot), and even scientists themselves acknowledge this; therein lies your (this article's) error. User:Jytdog's helpful source puts it in a nutshell: "It is also effective. Unlike many fad diets, this one makes some biochemical sense, which may be why so many scientists I know seem to be on it." <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 17:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The diet in name has become a 'fad'" <- end of discussion then, because this article is about the named commercial diet. If you want to edit an article on low-carbohydrate dieting in general, that is another matter. (BTW, you can hardly use a source that explicity calls this a "fad diet" to somehow argue it isn't one!) Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Promenader -- Thanks for this, and also for your comment above, acknowledging the context here -- this and other diet articles are regularly visited by representatives of companies marketing them, as well as people who are fans.  This particular diet (The trademarked "Atkins diet") really is one of the canonical fad diets.  Big claims, hyped on talk shows like Dr Oz etc, people try them, lose some weight for a short time, probably have some weird bowel movements and some other health effects, and then fall off the diet and put the weight back on.  A healthy diet is not complicated and is sustainable.  I heartily commend to you ISBN 978-1605985602 or ISBN 978-0865477384 which are both very readable, and present mainstream views on healthy eating and all of this crazy fad diet stuff. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I loathe such 'propaganda reps', but that should have no effect upon this article... they are as subject to scrutiny as anyone, and shouldn't be allowed to poison anything (even the mood).
 * Let me underline that I never asked that this article accept the diet as a whole, but I am criticising this article for rejecting it as a whole (including its science). Throwing the baby (science) out with the bathwater (hype, 'fad'), so to speak.
 * In fact, this article's tone contributes to the FUD spread by (ineffective) competing diet programs. That's not acceptable, either.
 * What the Atkins (corporation?) has done is take a basic core principal (carbohydrates = 'junk food' for the human body) and wrapped it in a cloak of marketing (expletive) and, by what I can see, post-Atkins-lifetime additions that would even make it ineffective.
 * Yet the science of that core principal remains, and that deserves mention. Discredit the Atkins (corporation) for their schemes, why not, but don't discredit the science it is based on (or studies that give it credit where credit is due)... that would be just contributing to a general state of ignorance (desired by some).<span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 18:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not true that "carbohydrates = 'junk food' for the human body". Carbohydrates have been in food that humans and other animals have eaten for millenia.  Really, this is just junk-science-meme stuff about low-carb fads. This is not mainstream nutrition. A diet that is very dominant in "carbs" is not good, of course, but a healthy diet includes lots of fruits and vegetables and whole grains, and some meat/dairy/legumes what have you, all of which have lots of "carbs".
 * What all of these fad diets do, is clutter the public discussion about nutrition with overly-fierce claims and overly-fierce debunking of the other fad diet's claims. All that is just noise that gets in the way of people hearing and understanding mainstream advice about a healthy diet which is not fancy or gimmicky but rather is simple.   Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "What all of these fad diets do, is clutter the public discussion about nutrition with overly-fierce claims and overly-fierce debunking of the other fad diet's claims." - but this might be what this article is doing. Are you sure of your propos?
 * Carbohydrates were rare before the advent of agriculture (only 15,000 years ago!), and it would be only normal that the human body (a result of millions of years of evolution) is simply not (yet) adapted (evolved) to that diet (for the record: my second degree is anthropology). But that is not for I (or anyone here) to 'decide': what sayeth scientific consensus on the matter? That's what is at the very core of the Atkins diet. And that science is shared by other diets, too. But this article doesn't even examine that; it glosses over (or pooh-poohs) it completely... all to the service of the FUD-spreaders you mention. But don't take my word for it. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 18:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the junk science fallacy behind the paleo diet (another fad). But this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Unless there are specific sources on the Atkins diet proposed for specific edits there is nothing to be done; these editorial musings are not the basis of productive work. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my last response here, as this has degenerated into a general discussion of the topic which is not what article talk pages are for.
 * Promenader, please actually read the healthy diet article and the sources there. That is mainstream nutrition, and all the fad diet articles in WP are written from the perspective of a mainstream view of a healthy diet. That is what NPOV means.
 * Unless your next post in this thread offers concrete changes to the article content based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines, I will be closing this thread. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A disingenuous threat (on what authority?) considering that I did not take discussion down the WP:NOTFORUM road; you did (by latching onto, again, a single misrepresented point in my writ that I said remained to be tested).
 * It's obvious that any suggestions that don't conform to an article (largely written by the contributor suggesting it) will be rejected, anyway, as it's obviously being 'protected' by a group of (self-proclaimed) 'experts' (who seem more concerned with 'status quo'-conformism organisations than scientific consensus). I will be opening this discussion again when I can find a means of (and the time for) representing scientific consensus (and this may require a lot of citation-chain hunting and (secondary) sources) about the low-carbohydrate diet that is at the core of Atkins... a science that this article (unfoundedly) rejects 'because' of those who would misuse/misrepresent it. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 21:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC about article 'anti-' Bias
This article goes to great lengths to dismiss the Atkins diet as a fad (and nothing more), and seems to select its studies and sources to support this WP:POV. Would expanding it to indicate non-selective scientific consensus (and the results thereof) on (aspects of) the Atkins diet bring more balance? <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 14:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

 * Malformed RfC. Weird title; vague POVish question question without supporting evidence. Suggest applying Hitchen's Razor. (The article as it stands correctly expresses the science with WP:MEDRS so far as I can see). Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * You should probably ask an actual question instead of making vague proposals. See WP:RFC. --tronvillain (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hard to formulate all that into a question, but I hope that's better. <span style="color:#ddd;font-family:Futura, Sans-Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #111;">T P  ✎ ✓ 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not really. It's still incredibly vague, and as pointed out, begs the question. --tronvillain (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * even with the change, the proposal begs the question (it assumes that there is some "scientific consensus" about this diet (am not sure that there is; this is a very strong term) and that this putative consensus is different from what the article states now), which makes the proposal not neutral and therefore inappropriate.  See Requests_for_comment Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets go with the consensus, and the scientific consensus, and leave things as they are. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Unscientific, Inadequate and Biased Treatment of The Atkins Diet
It's incredible, in 2018, that the article's author dismisses the Atkins Diet as a "fad" whose practitioners will derive few or no health benefits from it. Both Gary Taubes (Why We Get Fat) and Nina Teicholz (The Big Fat Surprise) exhaustively covered, and quoted, the findings of many nutrition scientists: that the Atkins Diet had been proven, in most cases,  to have a healthier outcome than either low-fat diets or the Mediterranean Diet. In fact, the Atkins Diet is infinitely healthier than the low-fat regime which Ancel Keys promoted half a century ago.

The slant of the article seems to uphold another conclusion of Taubes and Teicholz: that nutrition scientists will protect their personal theories with tigerish jealousy, even when those findings have long been proven to be completely false. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You should have no problem in supplying WP:RS reliable sources for all this then? -Roxy, the naughty dog . wooF 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and Taubes and Teicholz most certainly aren't what we're looking for! Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Atkins diet plan
(content copied from http://dietsnweightloss.com/blog/atkins-diet-plan/ removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonfm (talk • contribs) 06:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What is this for? Please start at WP:5P to see what we need for content here ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources to expand History section
To expand the History or Society sections, here are a few very interesting refs on Fad diet (look for the encyclopedias ones), and in the Talk:Fad_diet/Dumping_ground, there are notably a few retrospectives on the advertisement around this diet over decades. --Signimu (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)